Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

GREENOCK CORPORATION BILL (SUBSTITUTED BILL),

"to confer further powers on the Corporation of Greenock in relation to their electricity undertaking," presented, and read the first time; and ordered to be read a Second time.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

CIVIL SERVICE (ROYAL COMMISSION).

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 1.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he can yet state the terms of reference proposed for the Royal Commission on the Indian Civil Service; and will the terms of reference include the relations of the Civil Service to the Ministers now given responsibility and responsible to the Indian Legislature?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Earl Winterton): As the terms are rather long, I will, with the hon. and gallant Member's permission, have them circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT. They have already been published in the Press. The terms, which include "the general conditions of service," of course, cover the subject referred to in the latter part of the questions.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is the Noble Lord aware that the terms of reference have caused the Legislative Council at Delhi to reject the vote for this particular matter, because they do not include the question of the relations between the Civil Service and the Legislature, which is the point of this question?

Earl WINTERTON: I have seen the announcement of the action of the Legislature, but I do not think that it arises out of this question.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Are we to understand that the Government is going to persevere with this Royal Commission, in view of the fact that the Indians have refused a vote of credit for it?

Earl WINTERTON: I have already announced, in reply to a question by the hon. and gallant Gentleman, that it was the intention of the Government to move the appointment of the Commission.

Following are the terms of reference:

Having regard to the necessity for maintaining a standard of administration in conformity with the responsibilities of the Crown for the Government of India, and to the declared policy of Parliament in respect of the increasing association of Indians in every branch of the administration, and in view of the experience now gained of the operation of the system of government established by the Government of India Act in respect of the superior Civil Services in India, to inquire into:

(1) the organisation and general conditions of service, financial and otherwise, of those Services;
(2) the possibility of transferring immediately or gradually any of their present duties and functions to services constituted on a provincial basis;
(3) the recruitment of Europeans and Indians respectively for which provision should be made under the constitution established by the said Act, and the best methods of ensuring and maintaining such recruitment; and to make recommendations.

Sir T. BENNETT: 6.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India when the Royal Commission on the Indian Services will be nominated; whether, in order to avoid delay, it will be possible for the Commision to issue an interim Report dealing with the more urgent of the matters referred to it; and whether the Secretary of State will consider the advisability, in the interests both of economy and of speed, of having the inquiry in India conducted at some convenient central point?

Earl WINTERTON: I regret that I am not yet in a position to answer the first part of the question, but I hope that it will be possible to announce the personnel of the Commission at a very early date. As regards the second part, I cannot at present add anything to the reply given
by me to the hon. and gallant Member for Melton (Sir C. Yate) on the 26th February. I will bring the suggestion made in the third part to the notice of my Noble Friend, who is fully alive to the urgency of the question, and to the necessity for conducting this inquiry as speedily and in as economical a manner as possible.

POLITICAL PRISONERS (RELEASE).

Colonel Sir C. YATE: 2.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he has now received from India the full statement for the release of the 107 so-called political prisoners by Sir William Marris, the newly-appointed Governor of the United Provinces; and if he can give the result of the discussion by the authorities in India on the question of the exercise on a general scale of the discretion vested by law in the local Governments?

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask you, Sir, whether the expression in the question, "so-called political prisoners," is not a reflection on the Government of India, and is it in order to be put so in a question?

Mr. SPEAKER: I do not like assumptions of this kind put in questions, and I will give instructions, for their removal.

Earl WINTERTON: As the answer is rather lengthy, I will, with the permission of my hon. and gallant Friend, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

The Secretary of State has now received a summary of the detailed explanation furnished by the local government to the Government of India, the gist of which is that the local government took the action in question, which was within their legal competence, in view of the greatly improved political situation and the general and widely expressed feeling on the subject in the Province. The Governor, in the speech of which the text has already been circulated, made it clear at the time that their action implied no abandonment of the intention to maintain law and order. The local government explain that they exercised the discretion vested in them without prior reference to the Government of India, in view of the change for the better in the political situation, and the fact that the Govern-
ment of India had allowed considerable latitude to local governments in dealing with situations arising in their respective provinces in the light of conditions there prevailing.

The Government of India, in view of the fuller information available to them as to the extent and nature of the action taken, are satisfied that it was, in the circumstances, justified, and my Noble Friend the Secretary of State finds himself, after full investigation, in agreement with this conclusion. At the same time, my Noble Friend is discussing with the Government, of India whether some closer degree of co-ordination in this respect between the various administrations is not desirable.

CIVIL SERVANTS' PASSAGES.

Sir T. BENNETT: 3.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India what steps have been taken to carry out the undertaking given by the Secretary of State on the 15th and the 28th June, 1921, that the Government of India, in the comprehensive resolution which they were about to issue on the pay of the Indian Civil Service, would deal with all the circumstances, including the cost of sea passages?

Earl WINTERTON: I do not think that the reply given by the late Secretary of State, to a supplementary question on 28th June warrants the construction put upon it by my hon. Friend. As regards the question of affording relief in respect of the high cost of passages, I would refer to the answer given to the hon. and gallant Member for the Melton Division (Sir C. Yate) on 12th March, to which I cannot at present add anything.

ARMED POLICE RESERVE, PUNJAB.

Sir C. YATE: 4.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been called to the fact that the Punjab Government have decided to reduce the police budget by three lakhs of rupees, involving the immediate disbandment of the armed police reserve, despite the warning of the Inspector-General of Police; that the Punjab council have de manded the unconditional release of all prisoners, numbering some thousands, sentenced in connection with the Sikh Akali agitation and have refused to accept the Government proviso that the release should be conditional on the prisoners undertaking not to repeat the
offences for which they had been sentenced; and that the Government was defeated; and whether the Government of India have stated that they consider the disbandment of the armed police reserve a safe policy to pursue in view of the threatened warfare and bloodshed which the Punjab Government desired to prevent?

Earl WINTERTON: Yes, Sir. My Noble Friend quite realises the importance of these matters, and has inquired of the Government of India. They report that the reduction of 3 lakhs in the Punjab Police budget will involve the disbandment of 606 out of 20,000 men, the men disbanded being constables who had been temporarily engaged for the district reserve. The Governor in Council decided that he was justified, in view of the political and financial conditions in the Province, in taking this risk, and the Government of India express agreement. The decision of the Punjab Government as to the release of prisoners has not yet been announced, but my Noble Friend has been in consultation with the Government of India on the subject, and no decision in this matter will be taken without his knowledge.

RAILWAY MATERIAL (ORDERS).

Sir JOHN HEWETT: 5.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India what is the total amount in sterling for which orders have been placed since the 1st April, 1922, for the supply of rails rolling stock, and other materials for the company-managed railways in India; and what portion of the total represents orders given for the supply of articles manufactured in Great Britain?

Earl WINTERTON: The total amount of the orders mentioned by my hon. Friend is £6,867,500, of which £6,665,000 represents orders for articles manufactured in Great Britain. As I have already informed my hon. Friend, the orders for material placed during the same period by the State-worked railways amount to £1,735,000, of which all but £200,000 worth has been placed in Great Britain.

MOPLAHS (TRANSPORTATION).

Mr. J. HOPE SIMPSON: 7.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India
whether any and, if so, how many Moplahs have been transported to the Adaman Islands; how many are imprisoned in jails in India and Burma; and whether the sentences they are serving were inflicted by courts-martial or by the ordinary criminal courts of British India?

Earl WINTERTON: As regards Moplahs transported to the Adamans, inquiry has been made from the Government of India. On the 31st August last there were 8,185 Moplahs confined in jails; and there were then, or shortly after, 1,875 cases still to be finished in which 3,150 persons were being tried. Most of those convicted had been tried by the special courts, consisting of or including civil judicial officers, established Under the Malabar Ordinances. Military courts ceased to try cases when martial law ended on the 26th February, 1922. Up to the end of December, 1921, military courts had, it is believed, tried only 28 persons.

Mr. J. H. SIMPSON: Can the Noble Lord tell us how many cases are still pending?

Earl WINTERTON: No; as the result of a previous question asked by the hon. Gentleman, I am making inquiries into the whole position.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Will the Noble Lord tell us how many were actually transported to the Adaman Islands, and how it is that the Adaman establishment, which was closed down by his predecessor, is now again open?

Earl WINTERTON: That is one of the questions about which I am making inquiry, as I promised a week ago.

ORDNANCE FACTORIES PROVIDENT FUND.

Mr. BARNES: 8.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that the Foreman's Association of India regard the Indian Ordnance Factories Provident Fund as it now stands constitutes a breach of faith as compared with the recommendations made before the Palmer's Committee and, in consequence, service in the Department is now less attractive than as under the old pension rules; whether he is cognisant of the fact that the Association agrees with the principle of the fund but considers more equitable terms should be given if it is adequately to replace the old conditions;
and will he endeavour to obtain a satisfactory solution to the difficulties which have arisen between the Foreman's Association and the Government of India?

Earl WINTERTON: The Secretary of State has no information on the matter, but will ask the Government of India for a report on the points raised.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY.

MINERS' FREE COAL.

Lieut.-Colonel JAMES: 9.
asked the Secretary for Mines the amount of coal supplied free, or at prices below market rates, to the miners in the Durham and Northumberland districts during the months of December, 1922, and January, 1923; and what would have been the cost of this coal to the miners if they had been obliged to purchase it at the market rates?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Lieut.-Colonel Lane-Fox): The quantities of coal supplied free of charge during the months of December, 1922, and January, 1923, to miners in Durham were 131,193 tons and 141,409 tons respectively, and to miners in Northumberland 52,413 tons and 55,778 tons respectively. No coal was sold at preferential rates to miners in these districts. I have not the information that would enable me to say what the cost of the free coal would have been to the miners if it had been purchased at the market rates.

Mr. BATEY: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the coal supplied to the miners in Durham is not the best coal, but generally the worst coal that comes from the mines?

Lieut.-Colonel LANE-FOX: I am afraid I have not looked into that.

UNDERGROUND EXAMINERS.

Mr. CLARRY: 10.
asked the Secretary for Mines what proportion of under ground examiners in mines in charge of shifts are unqualified men; and whether he contemplates taking steps to reduce the number of men not fully qualified?

Lieut.-Colonel LANE-FOX: The qualifications of firemen, examiners and deputies are laid down in the Coal Mines Act of 1911, and, so far as I am aware, there are no men without such qualifications
employed as underground examiners in charge of shifts.

DRY ROCK-DRILLS, WEST, CUMBERLAND

Mr. GAVAN DUFFY: 11.
asked the Secretary for Mines how many prosecutions have been instituted by the Ministry against the mine owners or their agents for allowing the illegal use of dry rock-drills in the iron-ore mines in West Cumberland; and the result of such prosecutions?

Lieut.-Colonel LANE-FOX: The use of dry-rock drills is illegal only when drilling in ganister, hard sandstone, or other highly silicious rock, the dust from which is likely to give rise to fibroid phthisis. So far as our knowledge goes at present, these conditions do not obtain in the West Cumberland iron-ore mines, and, therefore, no prosecutions have been instituted by my Department against owners or agents of iron-ore mines in which such drills are used. As I informed the hon. Member, in reply to his question on 7th March, I am now taking further advice on the matter.

Mr. DUFFY: Is the House to assume from the reply that the use of dry rock-drills in limestone and ironstone mines is legal?

Lieut.-Colonel LANE-FOX: As far as I am informed, it is.

Mr. HARDIE: Is it not a fact that in boring in these iron sections there are 10 chances to one in travelling 10 feet of getting a rock which will give a greater spark?

Mr. DUFFY: 12.
further asked the Secretary for Mines if he can give a reference to any inquiry of any sort which has been specifically made into the effect upon the workers of the use of dry rock-drills in the iron-ore mines in West Cumberland; and will he lay copies of such Report or Reports upon the Table of the House?

Lieut.-Colonel LANE-FOX: I am not aware of any inquiry other than that referred to in my reply to the hon. Member on the 7th March. I shall be happy to send him a copy of the information obtained and communicated to the
Department by the doctor who made the inquiry.

Mr. DUFFY: Would the hon. Gentleman reply really to the question whether there was any inquiry into the use of dry rock-drills in the iron-ore mines, and the effect on the men?

Lieut.-Colonel LANE-FOX: As I say, I am not aware of any other inquiry than the medical inquiry.

Oral Answers to Questions — FRANCE AND RUHR DISTRICT.

BRITISH TRADE.

Mr. DARBISHIRE: 15.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware that the London and Cologne Steamship Company, Limited, of London, have had to cancel all sailings, both inwards and outwards, between London and Cologne; that at the present time they have awaiting export to Cologne over 1,000 tons of goods, including Government stores for the Cologne British garrison, foodstuffs, and raw materials, the latter for factories in the Cologne area owned exclusively by British nationals; and, if so, does he intend to allow the complete stoppage of British export trade in this manner to continue?

Lieut.-Colonel BUCKLEY (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): I have been asked to reply. I am aware of the facts. His Majesty's Government have already made strong representations to the German Government regarding the conditions in Cologne, and the importance of facilitating in every way possible the passage of British trade inwards and outwards. Arrangements have been made by the War Office for the carriage of stores to and from the Rhine.

Mr. C. ROBERTS: Is it the fact that ships arc travelling from Cologne or not?

Lieut.-Colonel BUCKLEY: I must have notice of that question.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: Can the hon. And gallant Gentleman say whether any good results have come out of the representations he has made?

Lieut.-Colonel BUCKLEY: I hope to be able to say so in the course of the next few days.

Mr. SAMUEL: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware of the trouble caused by these Regulations?

Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the same answer was given to me a week ago by the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, and that the traders in Cologne complain that the position is quite unchanged?

Mr. C. ROBERTS: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs said that this particular ship was despatched from Cologne? Does he know whether that is so or not?

Mr. MOREL: 23.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware that, owing to the embargo placed upon their property by the French military authorities at Ruhrort, a London firm of importers of sulphate of alumina are unable to fulfil their contracts at home, with the result that British chemical works they supply are likely to close down and throw several thousand men out of employment; that a London textile firm with £10,000 worth of textile goods, originally imported from Bradford and upon which the German duties have already been paid, is unable to export these goods from Cologne to Hamburg without paying a further 10 per cent. duty to the French military authorities; and that these eases are typical of a large number; if he will state whether His Majesty's Government are consenting parties to the position under which British commercial intercourse with Germany, within the boundaries of the German Republic as defined by the Treaty of Versailles, is subject to interference by, and to the payment of customs, taxes, and licences to, French or Belgian military authorities; and, if not, whether he will inform the House what measures His Majesty's Government propose to take on the matter of the principle involved, apart from representations in regard to particular cases of such interference?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Ronald McNeill: I have no information respecting the cases to which the hon. Member refers. If details can be supplied, they shall be immediately investigated. With regard to the
remainder of the question, His Majesty's Government have formally dissociated themselves from responsibility for the French and Belgian independent action and, as the House is aware, they are doing their utmost to secure concessions of principle that will ensure that the consequences of this action shall be as little prejudicial as possible to British trade.

Mr. MOREL: My I take it from that answer that the Government do not accept the decision that the French military authorities have any right to interfere with British trade in a country not under French sovereignty?

Mr. McNEILL: I have already said that the Government have dissociated themselves from the action these two countries have taken in this matter, and the hon. Gentleman can draw what conclusion he considers well.

Captain BENN: Have the Government dissociated themselves from the French levying taxes on our traders?

Mr. McNEILL: Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman suggest that we have any power to prevent the French doing so?

Sir J. SIMON: 33.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, before the recent advance of the French and Belgians into the Ruhr district, British goods imported into unoccupied Germany through the occupied area paid an import duty, collected by German officials of 10 per cent. ad valorem, whereas, as a consequence of the Franco-Belgian advance, they now are required to pay an import duty of 10 per cent. collected by French Customs officials on entering the occupied area, and a further duty of 10 per cent. collected by Gorman officials on entering the unoccupied area?

Lieut.-Colonel BUCKLEY: I have been asked to reply. Before the recent advance, duty on goods destined for unoccupied Germany was paid to German officials either at the frontier or at an internal Customs house, the duty being that fixed by the German Customs tariff according to the nature of the goods. At the present time goods which are not on the free list pay duty to the occupying
authorities at the uniform rate of 10 per cent. ad valorem. I am informed that the early re-introduction of the German Customs tariff with some modification is being considered, and that the question of the levy of duties on goods in transit through the occupied areas to unoccupied Germany is also under consideration. I believe the German Government regard such goods as still liable to the duties of the German tariff, but I am not aware what steps are taken, in practice, by that Government to enforce payment of duty in unoccupied Germany on goods entering from the occupied areas.

Sir J. SIMON: Are we to understand from that answer that the Government is not prepared to deny that, under the new arrangements, an import duty is first collected by the French Government officials, and that a further duty of 10 per cent. is collected by the German Government officials?

Lieut.-Colonel BUCKLEY: So far as we know, there are no German Customs at all, either in the occupied or unoccupied territory. It is very difficult to get exact information, because the line is always changing as the French advance.

Mr. DARBISHIRE: 16.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, if he is aware that, despite the promises of the Franco-Belgian authorities that all goods sent forward before the 20th February on which export licences had been obtained and duties paid would be released forthwith, cabled advices are still coming to hand in London from British firms' representatives on the spot that it is impossible to move such goods owing to the attitude of the Franco-Belgian authorities; and, if so, does he intend to take action to protect the interests of British export and import trade?

Lieut.-Colonel BUCKLEY: I have been asked to reply. I am fully aware of the difficulties of trading with occupied Germany in present circumstances and His Majesty's Government are in constant communication with the French and Belgian Governments on the subject. If full particulars of individual eases are forwarded to the Board of Trade every effort will be made to obtain reasonable treatment where there is a British interest involved.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 51.
asked the Prime Minister whether he will take every opportunity of trying to liberate British trade with the Rhineland and Germany from the hampering restrictions recently inflicted upon it; and will he make such efforts in connection with the evident desire of the French Government to secure our co-operation in dealing with the Turkish demands?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Bonar Law): His Majesty's Government are continuing to do everything possible in the direction suggested in the first part of the question. The Turkish reply to the peace terms offered at Lausanne is to be shortly discussed with the expert advisers of the French and other Allied Governments. I have no doubt that the Allies will, as heretofore, find themselves in agreement, and will continue to act in close co-operation in the matter.

CORRESPONDENCE (DELAYS).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 29.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware of the system of censorship established by the French authorities in the invaded German territories; that this censorship leads to great delays in the delivery of correspondence to and from these territories and England; that it takes as much as 16 days in some cases for business letters to reach this country from Frankfort; and that this censorship is liable to misuse through the divulgence of private commercial matters to the harm of British business interests; and whether representations have been made by His Majesty's Government to the French Government on the subject?

Mr. McNEILL: His Majesty's Government have no information to the effect that correspondence between the occupied German territories and this country is unduly delayed or liable to censorship by the French authorities. If the hon. Member will give me details of cases in which complaints have been made, they shall be investigated.

Major-General Sir R. HUTCHISON: Is the hon. Gentleman in communication by telegraph with the Royal High Commissioner at Coblenz?

Mr. McNEILL: Yes, Sir.

BRITISH ZONE (FREE PASSAGE TO GERMANY).

Sir JOHN SIMON: 32.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether there is free passage at any and what points between the area occupied by the British Army of Occupation centred at Cologne and unoccupied Germany, without the interposed control and customs barrier set up in consequence of the recent advance of and supported by French troops in that region?

Mr. McNEILL: The French authorities have established customs posts at certain points outside the eastern perimeter of the British area and claim to exercise customs control of goods passing between that area and unoccupied Germany. With these exceptions there is free passage in and out of the British area.

Sir J. SIMON: May I ask the hon. Gentleman to explain a little more clearly what is the exception to the proposition that the area occupied by the British army is now surrounded by the French authorities?

Mr. McNEILL: The right hon. and learned Gentleman will perceive, I think, a very great difference. There is no occupying French army surrounding the eastern portion of our area and, as I understand, the civil administration is still in the hands of the ordinary German authorities. There are, it is quite true, a few selected posts—customs posts—put up by the French, but that does not alter the general status of the territory in which they are situated.

Sir R. HUTCHISON: Is it not a fact that the French have now established a post at Bensberg, which separates two distinct parts of our area, and that for direct communication from one part of the area to the other it is necessary to pass through a French post?

Mr. McNEILL: I am not aware of that, but if the hon. Gentleman will put down a question I will answer it.

GERMAN CIVILIANS (DEATHS).

Major PAGET: 34.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can state the number of German civilians who have been killed in the Ruhr by French soldiers during their occupation?

Lieut.-Colonel BUCKLEY: I have no authoritative information on the subject.

Captain ARTHUR EVANS: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman ascertain how many French and Belgians were killed by the Germans in 1914?

PASSPORTS.

Major PAGET: 20.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when he intends to revert to the old pre-War passport application forms?

Mr. McNEILL: The form of application now in use is practically identical in all material points with that in use before the War, except for the additional requirement of photographs and of a few descriptive details necessary for identification purposes. There is no intention of reverting to the pre-War application form.

POLAND.

Mr. MOREL: 22.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government have any additional information beyond that which has appeared in the newspapers concerning the loan of 400 million francs contracted by the Polish Government with France for the purchase of war material, the construction of guns and munition factories, and for other military purposes; and whether information has recently been received from His Majesty's Minister at Warsaw in respect to military preparations on the part of the Polish Government?

Mr. McNEILL: With regard to the first part of the question, I have nothing to add to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the 7th instant in reply to a question on this subject by the hon. Member for Ilford. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.

Oral Answers to Questions — PEACE TREATIES.

MEMEL.

Mr. TREVELYAN: 26.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Ambassadors' Conference has decided that Memel is to be awarded to Lithuania?

Mr. McNEILL: The Ambassadors' Conference has decided that Memel shall be assigned to Lithuania under certain conditions?

VILNA.

Mr. TREVELYAN: 27.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Ambassadors' Conference have decided that Vilna shall be awarded to Poland; and what authority the Ambassadors' Conference has for making a decision?

Mr. McNEILL: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The Ambassadors' Conference derives the authority to take such a decision from Article 87 of the Treaty of Versailles, which stipulates that
the boundaries of Poland not laid down in the Treaty will be subsequently determined by the Principal Allied and Associated Powers.

Mr. MOREL: Would the hon. Gentleman tell the House what is the exact status of this Ambassadors' Conference? Is it a continuation of the Supreme Council? What is the connection of the Council with the Conference?

Mr. McNEILL: The Ambassadors' Conference, of course, represents the Governments who have given them their powers, and the decision in this case is taken by the Allied and Associated Powers, who are acting through the Ambassadors, who are assembled, for convenience sake, in Paris.

Captain BERKELEY: Is it not the fact that the whole relations of Poland and Lithuania, which comprises the question of Vilna, were some time ago handed over to the Council of the League of Nations for decision, and has the Council of the League concurred, or had any opportunity of expressing its opinion about this award by the Ambassadors' Conference?

Mr. McNEILL: No, Sir; it is not correct to say that it was handed over to the League of Nations. The League of Nations were informally asked if they would devise conditions and submit them to the parties interested. They did so, and the parties, as a matter of fact, rejected those terms; consequently, the responsibility for a decision was thrown back upon the Allied and Associated Powers.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Had our representatives on the Ambassadors' Conference instructions to agree to these terms with any qualification?

Mr. McNEILL: I would like notice of that question. I could not say offhand.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Has this House any authority at all over these decisions arrived at by our representatives to this Ambassadors' Council; is it out of our jurisdiction altogether?

Mr. McNEILL: The hon. and gallant Gentleman knows perfectly well the manner in which Parliament can exercise its authority in matters of this sort.

Mr. TREVELYAN: 52.
asked the Prime Minister whether it is the policy of His Majesty's Government, as illustrated by the decisions of the Ambassadors' Conference last week in the case of Vilna, to substitute the actions and decisions of the Ambassadors' Conference for the actions and decisions of the League of Nations?

The PRIME MINISTER: The decision of the Ambassadors' Conference, as has already been explained to the hon. Member, was directly based on the authority conferred on the Allies by Article 87 of the Treaty of Versailles. There is no question of substituting the actions and decisions of the Ambassadors' Conference for those of the League of Nations, whose authority with regard to questions which fall within its competence necessarily remains unimpaired.

GERMAN REPARATION.

Mr. CAINE: 48.
asked the Prime Minister if he is aware that recently Germany definitely offered France 7,500,000,000 dollars (seven billion five hundred million dollars) equal to approximately £1,600,000,000 (one thousand six hundred million pounds) in settlement of reparations exclusive of reparations in money, coal, iron, and in kind already made, and that France refused this offer without making an alternative proposition; and whether the British Government was aware of this refusal?

The PRIME MINISTER: So far as I am aware, it is not the case that a definite offer on these lines has been made in the manner suggested. I have heard that on certain conditions the German Government contemplated making an
offer of thirty milliard gold marks (£1,500,000,000) at the time of the Allied Conference at Paris. As to the circumstances of the German overture, I would refer my hon. Friend to Command Paper 1812, page 68. As my hon. Friend is aware, the British Government at the time of the Paris Conference considered that £2,500,000,000 might be found to be within Germany's power to pay, subject to a moratorium; but their proposals were not accepted by the Allies and the Conference broke down.

EASTERN GALICIA.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: (by Private Notice) asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government has ratified the decision of the Council of Ambassadors to hand over the Sovereignty of the Ukrainian territory of Eastern Galicia to Poland; whether he is aware of the fact that over 75 per cent. of the population of this district are of Ukrainian stock; whether this decision is in accordance with the wishes of the majority of the inhabitants, as promised by the Decree of 25th June, 1919, to which Decree England affixed her signature, and will this Decree be taken into consideration before ratification?

Mr. PRINGLE: May I call your attention to the fact, Mr. Speaker, that there is a question on this subject on the Paper to-morrow? Is it in order for hon. Members, by Private Notice, to anticipate questions which are on the Paper?

Mr. SPEAKER: If that be the case, the hon. Member has raised quite a sound point. It had escaped my notice.

Mr. PRINGLE: It is in the name of the right hon. Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon).

Mr. SPEAKER: Is it the same point?

Sir J. SIMON: I think it is.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: I was quite ignorant of this question being on the Paper.

Sir J. SIMON: I accept the statement of the hon. Member.

Mr. SPEAKER: We will keep to the rules.

NORTH SEA CONVENTION (TRAWLING).

Mr. DUNCAN MILLAR: 30.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign
Affairs whether any steps have been taken to consult the States signatories of the North Sea Convention, 1882, as to the extension of the fishery limits agreed on in Article 2 of the Convention, with a view to the exclusion of foreign trawlers from the Moray Firth and other areas within which trawling is prohibited under the bye-laws of the Fishery Board for Scotland; and, if not, whether he is prepared to take any action in the matter?

Mr. McNEILL: The answer to both parts of the question is in the negative.

Mr. MILLAR: Is it not possible to take effective action against foreign trawlers trawling in the prohibited areas when British trawlers are subject to prosecution?

Mr. McNEILL: I am not unaware of the many difficulties in this matter, which has been a burning question for many years; but I am not in a position to give any further answer than the one I have given.

Mr. MACPHERSON: Can this case be reconsidered again—

Mr. McNEILL: Which case?

Mr. MACPHERSON: The case of the Moray Firth?

Mr. McNEILL: I cannot give a promise to that effect, because I do not think the Moray Firth case will be taken out of the general number.

Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAY: Is there any real question of negotiations with foreign Governments?

Mr. McNEILL: I should not like to give a definite answer.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: Is not the real solution of this question a revision of what is called the three-mile limit.

Mr. MACPHERSON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the three-mile limit does not apply to the Moray Firth, and will he, therefore, have the case of the Moray Firth reconsidered?

Mr. McNEILL: As I have said, I cannot really give a pledge to that effect. I do not think my right hon. Friend is quite correct in saying that the three-mile limit does not apply to the Moray Firth.

Mr. MILLAR: 31.
further asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can state the territorial sea-limits claimed by Norway and Sweden within which trawling by foreign vessels is prohibited; and the number of cases during the past year in which action by prosecution or otherwise has been taken against British trawlers fishing within the limits claimed by those States?

Mr. McNEILL: The Governments of Norway and Sweden each claim that their territorial waters extend to four miles for fishery purposes; as regards the second part of the question, I am only aware of five cases in Norway.

Mr. MILLAR: Will the hon. Gentleman say what steps were taken against the foreign trawlers? Was it by prosecution?

Mr. McNEILL: I cannot say offhand. If the hon. Gentleman will put down another question, I will give that information.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: Does not the four-mile limit run outside the islands?

POLAND, YUGO-SLAVIA, CZECHO- SLOVAKIA AND HUNGARY (MILITARY FORCES).

Mr. MOREL: 21.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government have any information as to alleged purchases of war material in this country on behalf of the Polish and Yugo-Slav Governments; and if he will furnish the house with the figures giving the present strength of the military forces of Poland, Yugo - Slavia, Czechoslovakia, and Hungary?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Lieut.-Colonel Guinness): I have been asked to reply. In regard to the first part, I am not aware of any such purchase having been made. In regard to the second part, according to the best information in my possession, the figures are:

Poland
275,000


Yugo-slavia
165,000


Czechoslovakia
150,000


Hungary
35,000

RUMANIA (BRITISH ADVANCES).

Sir PHILIP DAWSON: 24.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what advances have been made by His Majesty's Government to the Rumanian Government since the Armistice; whether, in making such advances or loans, any attempt has been made by His Majesty's Government to protect the interests and rights of British companies whose oil properties in Rumania were destroyed and who were therefore entitled to indemnity; and whether, in view of the admitted liability of the British Government to the Rumanian Government in respect of any such sums, any conditions were laid down for setting aside out of the moneys advanced to Rumania a sufficient sum to cover the liability?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Major Boyd-Carpenter): Since the Armistice, His Majesty's Government have advanced about £5,000,000 to the Rumanian Government. A sum of about £3,000,000 was advanced in order to enable Rumania to pay British Government Departments for munitions, etc., supplied during the war period, and was therefore in substance a consolidation of existing indebtedness and not a new advance. About £2,000,000 is due to this country from Rumania in respect of relief supplies given since the Armistice. This is the British share in a general scheme of European relief, under which advances, totalling in all £12,500,000, were made to Rumania by the United States, the United Kingdom, and various European countries. At the time when these relief supplies were delivered to Rumania, the difficulties in connection with the compensation in respect of oil property in Rumania destroyed or damaged in 1916 had not yet arisen, and in any case it would not have been practicable to attach to such advances conditions such as those referred to in the second and third parts of the question. No advances have been made since the 31st March, 1921.

Sir P. DAWSON: 25.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Agreement made in 1921 between His Majesty's Government and the Rumanian Government, whereby the indemnification promised by the British Government to the Rumanian Govern-
ment for the compensation by them to the British companies for the destruction of their oil properties, carried out by a British Commission acting under instructions of His Majesty's Government, is to take the form of the cancellation of a part of the Rumanian war debt to this country, is in writing; what is the date thereof; and whether a copy of it will be placed upon the Table for the information of Members of the House?

Major BOYD-CARPENTER: The agreement was contained in correspondence in August, 1920, between the Treasury and the Rumanian Minister of Finance. The essential part of the agreement is as follows:
The Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Rumanian Minister of Finance agree in principle that it is desirable that the sums due by the British Government to the Rumanian Government in respect of damage done to the Rumanian Oil Wells at the time of Rumania's entry into the War should be set off against a corresponding total of the Rumanian Government's debt to the British Government, subject to satisfactory arrangements being made for the settlement as between the Rumanian Government and the proprietors of the oil wells of the claims of the latter against the Rumanian Government for compensation in respect of damage to the wells. It is further agreed that it is for the Rumanian Government and not the British Government to arrive at an arrangement for settlement of the claims for compensation above mentioned.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: Now that there is a Commission in Rumania dealing with British claims, will it not be possible for the Under-Secretary to make a representation to the Commission, so that British claims can be given a fair hearing?

Major BOYD-CARPENTER: I daresay that is a matter for consideration.

BRITISH EMPIRE EXHIBITION.

Mr. DARBISHIRE: 36.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department if he will cause to be made a definite announcement to the effect that the Government will not admit any further liability in the event of there being a deficit on account of the British Empire Exhibition; and what liability exists at present?

Lieut.-Colonel BUCKLEY: Under the British Empire Exhibition (Guarantee) Acts, 1920 and 1922, His Majesty's Government have undertaken to pay, up
to an amount not exceeding £100,000, a proportion of any loss which may result from the holding of the exhibition. As the hon. Member is aware, guarantees have been received from other sources to the amount of £1,103,000.

Mr. DARBISHIRE: For what proportion of the loss is the British Government responsible?

Lieut.-Colonel BUCKLEY: It depends upon what the loss is.

Mr. DARBISHIRE: What is the proportion?

Lieut.-Colonel BUCKLEY: Our pro portion of the loss is subject to average; if there be any loss.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: May I ask whether disparaging questions on the British Empire Exhibition are not, perhaps, the safest of all ways of securing that deficit?

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

DYED YARNS (EXPORTS TO CHINA).

Mr. GRAHAM WHITE: 37.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department if he is aware that the British export trade in dyed yarns to China is being crippled by the competition of yarn dyed locally with cheap German dyes; and what steps does he propose to take?

Branch of Trade.
Declared Value.
Value per head of the Population of Australia.
Value per head of the Population of the United Kingdom.




£
£
s
d.
£
s.
d.


(a) Imports into the United Kingdom consigned from Australia.

64,863,155
11
13
0
1
7
3


(b) Exports from the United Kingdom consigned to Australia:










United Kingdom Produce and Manufactures.

60,457,294
10
17
2
1
5
5


Foreign and Colonial Merchandise
…
5,274,912
0
18
11
0
2
3

MEXICO.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: 38.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether he is aware that the Mexican Consul-General

Lieut.-Colonel BUCKLEY: I understand that China has for many years imported British grey yarns in large quantities for dyeing locally, and that the trade in dyed yarns with that market has in consequence been small. I do not think that there is any action which I could usefully take in the matter.

Mr. WHITE: Would not a simple remedy be to repeal the Dyestuffs (Import Regulation) Act?

TRADE WITH AUSTRALIA.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 39.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department if he will state what is the date of the last official figures he possesses with regard to our trade with Australia; and whether he will state what was the total amount for the last 12 months for which figures are available, together with the amount per head?

Lieut.-Colonel BUCKLEY: As the answer contains a number of figures, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, have it circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman give the last two figures—the total and the amount per head per annum?

The following statement gives the desired particulars of the trade of the United Kingdom, with Australia during the year 1922:

addressed a body of London merchants on the 14th March, inviting them to reopen with Mexico an export trade in British machinery, cotton and woollen clothing, linens, shoes, and pottery; is he aware
that, owing to fear of ill-treatment by the Mexican authorities, British exporters hesitate to risk their goods and capital in Mexican trade; and will he, therefore, take this opportunity of informing the Mexican Consul-General that British commercial houses are eager to trade with Mexico provided that His Majesty's Government can be assured, on their behalf, that British goods, capital, and confidence will not be ill-treated in Mexico and that the Mexican Government will respect its obligations to British subjects?

Lieut.-Colonel BUCKLEY: I have received no report of the address mentioned in the first part of the question; but I am fully aware both of the desirability of encouraging trade with Mexico and of the present difficulties. As regards the last part of the question, I can assure my hon. Friend that all steps have been taken by His Majesty's Government to make the position clear to the Government of Mexico.

Mr. SAMUEL: May I send 2my hon. and gallant Friend a copy of that report?

Lieut.-Colonel BUCKLEY: I shall be glad to have it.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE

ALLOTMENTS.

Sir KINGSLEY WOOD: 40.
asked the Minister of Agriculture what further progress, if any, has been made by local authorities in reacquiring under the statutory powers land now held as allotments which is to be surrendered from the provisions of the war emergency legislation on the 25th of this month; whether he can state approximately the total amount of land still to be acquired by councils; and what further steps he proposes to take to hasten the acquisition of this land or the provision of alternative land for allotment holders who will be dispossessed?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Sir Robert Sanders): The Ministry has done everything possible by inspectors' visits and otherwise in the direction of urging local authorities to use their powers of re-acquring, under the Allotments Acts, land at present used for allotments under D.O.R.A. powers. The Ministry has every reason to think that a large propor-
tion of such land has been re-acquired, or, where this has proved impracticable, alternative land has been obtained, but, as stated in the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend on the 19th February last, it is not possible to give even an approximate figure of the land acquired, and I am unwilling to impose upon allotment authorities additional work by calling for a statistical return.

Sir K. WOOD: Will the right hon. Gentleman send one final communication before the 25th inst. to these authorities, inasmuch as a large number of allotment holders will otherwise be dispossessed?

Sir R. SANDERS: I will consider that suggestion.

BKEAD (PRICES).

Mr. A. BENNETT: 42.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether his attention has been called to the high retail price of bread in view of the cheapness of wheat; what is the average price paid to the British farmer for wheat; and what, assuming this price, is the profit to the retailer on a sack of flour of 280 lbs., assuming that the loaf is sold, respectively, at 8d., 8½d., and 9d?

Sir R. SANDERS: I am aware that complaint has been made that the price of bread is high in proportion to the price of wheat, and this and similar complaints in regard to other foodstuffs are now being investigated by the Committee which I recently appointed to inquire into the methods and costs of selling and distributing agricultural, horticultural and dairy produce in Great Britain, and to consider whether, and, if so, by what means the disparity between the price received by the producer and that paid by the consumer can be diminished. According to the returns made under the Corn Returns Act, 1882, the price of British wheat now averages about 9s. 6d. per cwt. Bread is not usually made exclusively from British wheat flour. The present price of the average quality of flour for bread-making is about 39s. per 280 lbs., and about 90 4-lb. loaves can be made from this quantity of flour. The actual cost of the flour in a 4-lb. loaf is therefore at present prices about 5¼d., and the difference between this and the price at which the bread is actually sold represents the costs and profit of the middleman.

CANADIAN CATTLE (IMPORTATION).

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: 43.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether it is intended to issue an Order in Council allowing the importation of breeding stock into Great Britain?

Sir R. SANDERS: The Ministry proposes, in accordance with Section 7 of the Importation of Animals Act, 1922, to lay before each House of Parliament a Draft Order with regard to the introduction into Great Britain of breeding cattle from Canada.

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that to allow the importation of breeding cattle from Canada would be a distinct breach of faith with the agricultural community.

Sir R. SANDERS: I do not realise that.

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why the Government are much more anxious to encourage agriculture in Overseas Dominions than at home?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is an argument.

RAILWAY RATES.

Mr. ROYCE: 44.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that the railway companies have reduced the rates on cotton goods by 14 per cent., leaving those rates at 62½ per cent. above the pre-War rates, whereas, in the case of agricultural produce, they refuse to reduce the rates below the present figures, which represent an increase of 76 per cent. above those of pre-War rates; and will he make representations to the Railway Rates Tribunal to remove this discrimination against the agricultural industry?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): I have been asked to reply. The railway companies are at liberty to make such modifications on their charges as the circumstances, in their opinion, warrant, and I have no particulars of the rates on cotton to which the hon. Member refers. I would remind the hon. Member that the Railway Rates Tribunal has power to determine any application for reduction made to them, but initiative rests with the traders.

Mr. ROYCE: Has the Minister of Agriculture made an representations to the Rates Tribunal with reference to the excessive charges for the carriage of agricultural produce?

Colonel ASHLEY: I would remind the hon. Member that the initiative lies with the traders, or any body that feels that it has a grievance. If they have a grievance in regard to rates, it is their duty to go to the Rates Tribunal and ask the Tribunal to give a clear judgment on the matter.

Mr. ROYCE: Has not agriculture a grievance, and does not the Minister of Agriculture represent agriculture?

Lieut.-Colonel COATES: 62.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he can take steps to bring together representatives of agriculture and the railway companies to consider the reductions of railway rates on agricultural produce?

Sir R. SANDERS: Not long ago I received a proposal of the nature referred to in the question, and I immediately utilised all the means at my disposal to forward this suggestion. I am glad to say that arrangements are now being considered for the establishment of a private and unofficial Committee representing both agriculturists and railway companies to investigate the present methods and cost of transporting agricultural produce and livestock by rail. The Railway Companies' Association will nominate the railway representatives and the farmers and landowners will be asked to nominate an equal number of members. I feel confident that by the frank interchange of opinion, and by the reconsideration of existing practice concerning packing, grading and loading of railway wagons very great economies can he effected for the mutual benefit of agriculture and of the railway companies.

Mr. ROYCE: Will the right hon. Baronet include a Labour representative on that Committee?

Sir R. SANDERS: I am not nominating the representatives.

WAGES DISPUTES.

Mr. J. H. SIMPSON: 63.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he has any information as to the progress of the negotiations between the agricultural labourers who are on strike on a farm
in Bedfordshire and Cambridgeshire and their employer; and whether the dispute between labourers and members of the National Farmers' Union in Norfolk has yet been settled?

Sir R. SANDERS: With regard to the dispute on certain farms in Bedfordshire and Cambridgeshire, there is no change in the situation at the moment, but negotiations are proceeding. The dispute in Norfolk is still unsettled. As the hon. Member will have seen from the Press reports this morning, a meeting between the leaders was held on the l7th instant. Although no agreement was then reached, I understand that negotiations are still proceeding, and that a further meeting will be held this week.

Mr. SIMPSON: Has arbitration been resorted to in the Bedfordshire and Cambridgeshire dispute?

Sir R. SANDERS: Not that I am aware of.

Mr. NOEL BUXTON: (by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister whether he could make any statement in regard to the crisis arising from the fall of agricultural wages and profits such as may prevent an extension of the strike already begun in Norfolk, and so avert a disaster to British agriculture?

The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir, I am sorry there is no statement that I can make which would have that effect.

Mr. BUXTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the increasing number of

Quarters of 480 lbs.


Year.
Home Production.
Net Imports.
Ratio of Home Production to Net Imports.









Per cent.


1913
…
…
…
…
7,087,000
28,403,000
25.0


1917
…
…
…
…
8,040,000
25,819,000
31.1


1918
…
…
…
…
11,643,000
22,002,000
52.9


1919
…
…
…
…
8,665,000
22,373,000
38.7


1922
…
…
…
…
8,156,0001
26,743,000
30.5


NOTE.—Statistics of the imports into Great Britain alone are not separately published.

CREDIT FACILITIES.

Mr. MILLAR: 66.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in introducing

cases in which boards of guardians are now finding it necessary to supplement wages if they are not to fall below the subsistence level, and would he say whether that does not prove the necessity of regulation, as for instance, by Wages Boards?

The PRIME MINISTER: I do not think that the conclusion mentioned follows from that, and I am told that there are only five unions or thereabouts which are concerned.

Mr. BUXTON: I beg to give notice that on the first suitable, occasion I shall ask leave to move the adjournment of the House in order to call attention to the question.

WHEAT CULTIVATION.

Mr. BUXTON: 65.
further asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will state the proportion of wheat grown in Great Britain to imported wheat in the years 1913, 1917, 1918, 1919, and 1922?

Sir R. SANDERS: As the reply is in the form of a statistical statement, I propose, with the permission of the hon. Member, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the statement promised:

Estimated production of wheat in the United Kingdom, net imports of wheat (including wheat meal and flour expressed as grain) into the United Kingdom, and the proportion of home produced wheat to net imports, in the years 1913, 1917, 1918, 1919 and 1922:

any scheme of credit facilities in order to assist farmers and others engaged in the agricultural industry, he will in-
clude special provisions for making loans and advances to small landholders and settlers under the Government land settlement schemes?

Sir R. SANDERS: Under the Land Settlement (Facilities) Act, 1919, county councils are empowered to make loans to statutory smallholders in cases where facilities for obtaining loans from a cooperative credit society are inadequate. It does not seem necessary, therefore, to deal specially with their needs in the proposed Credit Bill.

Major PAGET: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider lowering the rate of interest at present proposed?

Sir R. SANDERS: That will be considered when the Bill comes in.

Mr. MILLAR: Will the right hon. Gentleman be prepared to consider other smallholders who are not under the scheme?

Sir R. SANDERS: I think the hon. Member had better wait for the introduction of the Bill.

ANIMALS (HUMANE SLAUGHTER).

Mr. R. MORRISON: 41.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether it is intended to publish the Report of the Cabinet Committee which was appointed to consider the use of mechanical instruments in slaughtering animals?

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Neville Chamberlain): The publication of the Report referred to would be contrary to the usual practice in connection with Cabinet Committees, from which it is not proposed to depart.

Lieut. Colonel MURRAY: Has any decision been arrived at in this matter?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, not yet.

EXPORT DUTIES, WEST AFRICA.

Mr. C. ROBERTS: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that since the recent introduction of the policy of taxing the export of raw produce from West Africa the exports there from have fallen both in value and volume; and whether His Majesty's Government will
consider the advisability of abolishing the duties in order to aid a revival of trade in West Africa?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): I have been asked to reply Export duties on produce are not of recent introduction in West Africa. They were first imposed in Nigeria and the Gold Coast in 1916, in Sierra Leone in 1918 and in the Gambia in 1899. Their abolition would cause serious financial loss to the West African Governments, and I fear there is no practical alternative form of taxation which could be imposed to make up such a loss of revenue.

Mr. MOREL: Is it not a fact that this export tax on produce in West Africa has done an enormous lot to reduce the production of the natives, and is really impoverishing the Colonies in that way more than any other Measure can do?

Mr. SPEAKER: We must argue that on another occasion.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA.

BRITISH POLICY.

Lieut-Commander KENWORTHY: 46.
asked the Prime Minister whether any attempt has been made by His Majesty's Government to arrive at a settlement with the Russian Government since the end of the Hague Conference; if he is aware of the number of outstanding questions between the two Governments that are in need of solution; and whether he has yet decided upon a policy towards Russia; and, if so, what it is?

The PRIME MINISTER: I have nothing to add to the replies given to the hon. and gallant Member on the 27th November last and to the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Morel) on the 26th February.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Does the right hon. Gentleman remember that he asked me to describe what the policy of the last Government was towards Russia? Has he discovered a policy? I have asked the question quite seriously.

The PRIME MINISTER: And I have given a quite serious reply.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the matter being considered? Is any Committee sitting on it, or is anyone thinking what to do, seeing that we are losing by this?

BRITISH TRADE.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 49.
asked the Prime Minister if he is aware that British merchants are handicapped in doing business in Russia by the absence of diplomatic relations between the British and Russian Governments; and that this state of affairs will be rendered more acute by the commercial treaty now being negotiated between the German and Russian Governments; and what steps he proposes to take to assist British merchants in trading with Russia?

The PRIME MINISTER: His Majesty's Government have no reason for believing that either of the two statements contained in the first two parts of the question has, or will have, any foundation in fact; and they are unaware of the necessity of taking any such steps as are suggested in the concluding paragraph.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Has the right hon. Gentleman no information at all as to negotiations going on for a regular commercial treaty between Germany and Russia? Do I understand that that is so?

The PRIME MINISTER: No.

Mr. REMER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the hon. and gallant Member has recently been to Russia to conduct most important business, and will he consider the appointment of the hon. and gallant Member as our diplomatic representative in Russia?

Mr. H. H. SPENCER: In view of the fact that Socialism has completely broken down in Russia—

HON. MEMBERS: Order, order!

EMPIRE SETTLEMENT.

Lieut-Colonel Sir JOHN NORTON-GRIFFITHS: 47.
asked the Prime Minister whether, seeing that the increase of population is one of the main reasons which prevents a return to 1913 conditions, and that a wise and prudent scheme
of emigration to the Dominions is required to relieve this condition, he will inform the House what, if any, action the Government propose to take to accelerate migration to the Dominions, in view of the fact that the efforts of the Government in this direction have not as yet even attained the rate of emigration which was attained before the War without Government assistance?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I have been asked to reply. I would remind my hon. Friend that the Empire Settlement Act only received the Royal Assent last summer, and that under that Act mutual cooperation in agreed schemes with Oversea Governments is necessary before Government assistance to intending settlers can be granted. Progress is now being effected at an increasing rate, and I am glad to be able to inform the House that Mr. Black, the Deputy-Minister of Immigration of the Dominion of Canada, has just arrived to negotiate three schemes for such co-operation suggested by the Dominion of Canada. The arrival of Sir George Fuller, Premier of New South Wales, is also most opportune, and prospects of settlement in that State will be discussed with him.

Sir J. NORTON-GRIFFITHS: Will the hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of recommending a preliminary conference with those gentlemen who are now in this country from overseas—Prime Ministers and other representatives who are interested in emigration generally—with a view of arriving at some preliminary decision in this matter before the forthcoming and announced economic conference?

Captain A. EVANS: Will the hon. Gentleman undertake to ascertain from the local Employment Exchanges how many men who are at present unemployed will be prepared to emigrate to the Dominions under approved conditions?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I am afraid that that is a different question, and I would ask the hon. and gallant Member to put it down. In reply to the hon. and gallant Member for Wandsworth (Sir J. Norton-Griffiths), I think the most rapid progress can be made by getting on to definite and concrete schemes as quickly as we can, and leaving over general discussion till later. We have now got to the practical
stage, and, while we are taking into consultation the Prime Ministers, and Dominion representatives as they come, and interviews are being held with the Oversea Settlement Committee, I do not think that such an all-round conference as the hon. and gallant Member suggests would be beneficial at the present time.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: How many of the schemes which Mr. Black is bringing from Canada relate to juveniles, and how many to adults?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: One has to do with juveniles.

Lord H. CAVENDISH - BENTINCK: Cannot the Government formulate some scheme for keeping British workers on British land?

EGYPT.

Mr. CLYNES: 50.
asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to recent reports showing the existence of a grave situation in Egypt; whether he can make any statement thereon; and whether he can indicate what steps are now being taken to establish a responsible and representative Government in Egypt?

Mr. McNEILL: I have no knowledge as yet of the intentions of the new Egyptian Government in regard to constitutional reform, nor can I add anything to the statements made in reply to recent questions on the situation in Egypt.

Mr. CLYNES: May I ask the hon. Gentleman's attention to the first part of the question, and, particularly, has he seen the messages sent to this country by the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Spoor)?

Mr. McNEILL: I have seen some of the statements to which the right hon. Gentleman refers.

FISH (DESTRUCTION).

Dr. CHAPPLE: 54.
asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the destruction of 20 tons of surplus fish in Edinburgh Fish Market because of the refusal of the railway companies to rail it south, where it was urgently needed, under a freight rate
arrived at by the railways combine; and whether he contemplates any anti-trust legislation that will prevent the railway companies standing in the way of the legitimate demand of the people for cheap and abundant food?

Colonel ASHLEY: I have been asked to reply. I have no information in regard to the first part of the question. As to the second part, I would remind the hon. Member that Sections 60 and 78 of the Railways Act, 1921, provide a means by which existing railway charges may be brought to the determination of the Railway Rates Tribunal, and I see no reason to propose amending legislation.

EX-CABINET MINISTERS (CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION).

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: 55.
asked the Prime Minister whether he has given further consideration to the subject of the publication and sale by ex-Cabinet Ministers of confidential information acquired during their period of office; and, if so, whether a decision has been reached to take such steps as will put a stop to the publication of information of this nature until 15 years have elapsed from the date of demitting office?

The PRIME MINISTER: This matter has been referred to a Committee of the Cabinet who are considering the whole question.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: When the Committee of the Cabinet reports, will the right hon. Gentleman make announcement to the House?

The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, that will be done.

Sir JOHN BUTCHER: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the propriety of extending to ex-soldiers and sailors of high command this principle which it is proposed to apply to ex-Cabinet Ministers?

Mr. HARRIS: As the ex-Prime Minister made a statement in one of the papers of his views, will the right hon. Gentleman give the ex-Prime Minister a chance of stating his views to the Cabinet?

The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, certainly, should he wish.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the suggestion that any moneys received from the sale of these article should be handed over to charity?

EASTER RECESS.

Lieut-Colonel MURRAY: 56.
asked the Prime Minister if he is now in a position to name the date and length of the Easter Adjournment?

Mr. PENNY: 61.
asked the Prime Minister when the House will rise for Easter; and what will be the possible duration of the recess?

The PRIME MINISTER: We propose to adjourn on Thursday, 29th March, and meet again on Monday, 9th April.

GREECE AND TURKEY.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: 57.
asked the Prime Minister if he is now in a position to give the House an assurance that as soon as peace with Turkey is concluded there will be laid before Parliament the Papers relative to the events leading up to the Greek defeat in Asia Minor and the fall of Smyrna and to the negotiations with the Turkish Nationalist authorities in September?

The PRIME MINISTER: If the hon. and gallant Member will put the question after peace is concluded, I will consider it.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: Ought not the right hon. Gentleman to let us have this assurance now?

The PRIME MINISTER: I do not think so. It will be time enough then.

Captain BENN: Why is it that no Supplementary Estimate has been laid in reference to the events in this question so as to enable the House of Commons to discuss them?

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: Are we to understand that the right hon. Gentleman contemplates that the information contained in these Papers may never be given to the House?

The PRIME MINISTER: No, I said I should be quite ready to consider it after the Treaty has been concluded.

CANADA AND UNITED STATES (TREATY).

Mr. HURD: 58.
asked the Prime Minister whether it was on the advice of His Majesty's Ministers in the United Kingdom or His Majesty's Ministers in the Dominion of Canada that the Canadian Minister Plenipotentiary alone was authorised to sign the recent Treaty with the United States on behalf of the King; and when he will lay upon the Table the correspondence leading up to this development in the constitutional practice of the British Empire?

The PRIME MINISTER: The arrangement made was the result of agreement between the two Governments. I am considering the question of laying correspondence.

Mr. HURD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the correspondence was presented in Canada last year?

The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, I am aware of that.

IMPERIAL CONFERENCE.

Sir ROBERT HAMILTON: 60.
asked the Prime Minister when it is proposed to hold the next Imperial Conference and the Economic Conference?

The PRIME MINISTER: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave on Monday last in reply to questions on this subject, to which I am at present unable to add anything.

HOSTELS (CLOSING).

Sir K. WOOD: 67.
asked the First Commissioner of Works whether, and to what extent, he proposes to close hostels and other buildings under the jurisdiction of the Office of Works?

The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Sir John Baird): The hostels, which were established solely as a war measure, are being closed, and the land on which they stand handed back to the owners, as it is no part of the duty of my Department, nor is it desirable, that it should manage such institutions. I do not understand the hon. Member's reference to the closing of other buildings.

Sir K. WOOD: Can the right hon. Baronet give an approximate estimate of
the limitation of housing accommodation in the country which will follow on the result of this action?

Sir J. BAIRD: That is, obviously, a question which ought to be put down.

Mr. JARRETT: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the effect of closing one of these hostels means that nearly 300 men, mostly unemployed, will be thrown on the streets, and will he further consider the matter?

HUTMENTS, DOWNING STREET.

Sir R. HAMILTON: 69.
asked the First Commissioner of Works whether and, if so, when it is intended to remove the hutments from the quadrangle of the Government buildings on the south side of Downing Street?

Sir J. BAIRD: It is proposed to remove part of the hutments in the Foreign Office quadrangle at an early date, and the remainder before the autumn, when arrangements have been made for re-housing the staffs, at present in occupation.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS.

TAPE MACHINES.

Mr. EDWARDS: 70.
asked the First Commissioner of Works whether he will, for the convenience of Members, have the tape fixed in the map room, and also the newspaper and tea rooms?

Sir J. BAIRD: I regret that there are no funds available which could be devoted to this purpose.

REFRESHMENT DEPARTMENT.

Mr. BLUNDELL: 79.
asked the hon. Member for Cheltenham, as Chairman of the Kitchen Committee, whether he is aware that potatoes of the finest quality can be purchased for approximately 30s. per ton; and if he will provide, in future, better potatoes than those at present available in the dining rooms?

Sir J. AGG-GARDNER: I am aware that potatoes can be pruchased in the neighbourhood of Ormskirk—the hon. Member's constituency—for 30s. a ton, but the freight and cartage to the House of Commons would require an addition of 46s per ton, thus raising the price to
76s. This is approximately the price we are now paying for King Edward potatoes, which I am advised are the best in the market.

Mr. BLUNDELL: Will the hon. Gentleman make representations to the Minister of Transport?

Mr. BLUNDELL: 80.
asked the hon. Member for Cheltenham, as Chairman of the Kitchen Committee, if, as an earnest of the practical sympathy of the House of Commons with British agriculture, he will substitute Welsh mutton for Canterbury lamb as a standing dish on the bill of fare?

Sir J. AGG-GARDNER: As we find there is a demand for Canterbury lamb at this season of the year, we supply it. But if the supply of British meat is to be accepted as an earnest of our sympathy with British agriculture, we can claim that expression of sympathy, as British meat is always a standing dish on our bill of fare.

Mr. HARRIS: Is not the Canterbury lamb supplied really only New Zealand mutton?

Sir J. AGG-GARDNER: No. It is Canterbury lamb.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: Why should the products of Wales be constantly imposed upon Scotsmen?

LADIES' GALLERY.

Major McKENZIE WOOD: I beg to ask you, Mr. Speaker, the following question: Whether, seeing that the Members' Gallery is now open to both sexes, you can arrange that after Easter admission to the Ladies' Gallery shall be on the same basis as admission to the other Gallery, by doing away with the ballot for 8.15 and instructing the Serjeant-at-Arms to issue Orders accordingly?

Mr. SPEAKER: The arrangement with regard to the Ladies' Gallery—dividing the sitting into two parts, before and after 8.15 p.m.—was an arrangement made before ladies were admitted to the Members' Gallery. That has quite altered the circumstances. Personally, I think it would be for the convenience of the greater number of Members and their friends if we assimilated admission to the Ladies' Gallery to that of admission to the Members' Gallery. And if that be the
view of the House, I will give directions for it to be done after Easter.

Mr. N. MACLEAN: Does the assimilation of the Ladies' Gallery to the other gallery mean that men would be admitted to the Ladies' Gallery?

Mr. SPEAKER: There are some ladies who might object to that.

Mr. HOGGE: Have you considered, Mr. Speaker, that, although the Members' Gallery has been open to ladies as well as to men from 4 o'clock onwards, the number of seats in the Ladies' Gallery is very small compared with the number of seats in the Members' Gallery, and that if tickets be issued at 4.15 for the Ladies' Gallery, they would entitle the holders to remain the whole day, whereas if the sitting be divided into two parts, Members have a double chance of getting a lady into the Gallery. As the pressure on Members this Session is extraordinarily heavy, I would suggest that, before agreeing to that suggestion simply by gathering the cheers of the House, you should reconsider the matter from that point of view.

Mr. SPEAKER: Certainly, the last thing I wish to do is to press a change which is against the views of the House. What has been represented to me is: that frequently Members find vacancies in the Ladies' Gallery, say, at 7 o'clock, and they take ladies up there. So that would be very inconvenient for them to have to remove at 8.15. What I suggest is that hon. Members should think over the proposal, and I will ask for a further question to be put to me on Thursday. Then, perhaps, I can gather the sense of the House. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]

ROYAL COMMISSION ON ANCIENT MONUMENTS, SCOTLAND.

Mr. WILLIAM GRAHAM: 71.
asked the Under-Secretary to the Scottish Board of Health whether he is aware that the principal clerk of the Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Scotland, a married man over 55 years of age, with 14 years, less four years during the War period, efficient service, was dismissed from his post as at 3lst March, 1922, on the ground of national economy; that this Was due to the Treasury rationing the Commission at a figure which precluded the salaries of
all the staff which was one short of normal, being met, and notwithstanding the protest of the Commission; whether he is aware that the clerk has offered to carry out his duties at a reduced salary during the present financial strain; and whether, seeing that no reduction has taken place in the staff of the similar Commission in England, but that the salaries of that staff have been increased, he will consider the reinstatement of this clerk?

Captain ELLIOT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health, Scotland): The facts with regard to the clerk referred to are substantially as stated in the question. His case has been carefully considered, but, as the services of such a clerk are not essential to the performance of the work, my Noble Friend cannot recommend a reversal of the decision taken a year ago. I am informed that in the case of the English Commission the unexpected return of an investigator who had been seriously wounded in the War caused an addition to the total cost for salaries, but that, on the other hand, some reductions were made in staff and salaries. The aggregate cost of each Commission was substantially reduced in 1922–23 on grounds of economy.

Mr. GRAHAM: In view of the very great services which this official has rendered for many years under the Scottish Department, will the hon. and gallant Gentleman reinstate him, or give him employment in some other Department, and not leave him stranded as he is now?

Captain ELLIOT: I will certainly see whether that suggestion can be carried out.

REFUSE DUMPS, LONDON.

Sir CYRIL COBB: 73.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that parts of the outer circle of the London area are being made dumping grounds for the refuse of the various borough councils situated within the adminstrative area of the county; and whether, in view of the consequent danger to health in connection with the new housing estates which are developing there, he will say if his Department is taking any action to check this practice and enforce on the borough councils some other and better method of disposing of their refuse?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am aware that complaints have been made as to the nuisance created by the establishment of refuse tips in the outer parts of the London area. Last July my Department issued a circular to local authorities on this subject, specifying a number of precautions to be taken, and I am assured that since that date a considerable improvement has taken place. Owing to the high capital cost of alternative methods, I do not consider it practicable to enforce them upon borough councils by legislation, but in my opinion it is highly desirable that where possible modern methods of dealing with town refuse should be adopted.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

OUT RELIEF.

Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: 75.
asked the Minister of Health if he will state the total amount of the loans which he has sanctioned boards of guardians to raise during the last two years for the purposes of paying out relief and other charges in connection with unemployment; and the maximum and minimum rates being levied by these boards of guardians?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Approximately £20,000,000; but this figure of course includes renewals. The rates in the unions affected vary from 1s. 5¾d. to 10s. 4½d.

LABOUR EXCHANGE CARDS.

Mr. SMEDLEY CROOKE: 88.
asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that unemployed ex-service men in Birmingham, having found employers who offer them work, are prevented from taking it because they are unable to get their green cards from the Labour Exchanges, who give as their reason for refusal to issue the green cards that they have not received from the employers notification of the vacancies; and will he issue such instructions to the Exchanges which will help men obtain work and withdraw the Regulation referred to which prevents work being obtained?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Betterton): I am having local inquiry made as to the facts, and will communicate the result to my hon. Friend. I may
add, however, that the "green card" referred to is presumably the card of introduction from the Exchange, and it is not clear why such a card should be required in the cases described.

BENEFIT, MILLOM.

Mr. GAVAN DUFFY: 89.
asked the Minister of Labour how many persons in the Millom area of Cumberland who have been in receipt of unemployment benefit are now upon the gap; and how long they have been on the gap?

Mr. BETTERTON: The number of persons attending at the Millom Employment Exchange who up to 12th March had exhausted benefit during the fourth special period was 86.

The date of exhaustion and the numbers exhausting at these dates are as follow:

5th February
7


12th "
2


26th "
8


5th March
6


12th "
63

Mr. DUFFY: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the district in which Millom is situated has already had its grant reduced by thousands of pounds during the past year, and that consequently the board of guardians is unable to keep these people?

Mr. BETTERTON: That supplementary question would appear to raise the question of the gap. We shall be discussing the whole question of gaps this afternoon on the Report stage of the Unemployment Insurance Bill. Perhaps the hon. Member will raise the matter then.

RELIEF SCHEMES, GLASGOW.

Mr. MUIR: 90.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of men employed by the Glasgow Corporation on schemes assisted by Government grants?

Mr. BETTERTON: According to information supplied by the Glasgow Corporation, the number of persons employed by them at 9th March on schemes assisted by Government grants was 1,220.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING.

LEYBOURNE.

Sir T. BENNETT: 74.
asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that in the village of Leybourne, near Maid-
stone, there are three houses in habitable condition which have stood empty for two years, although there are houseless persons in the village who are ready and anxious to rent them; and whether he will consider the advisability of making in the forthcoming Housing Bill provision for meeting cases of this kind?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: As at present advised, I doubt whether it is practicable to deal effectively with cases of this kind by legislation, but I will give the matter further consideration.

BUILDING MATERIALS.

Mr. MOSLEY: 76.
asked the Minister of Health whether he will state the total sum still outstanding and due to the Ministry from local authorities and other purchasers of building materials for goods supplied to them by the Department of Building Materials Supply?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The total sum still outstanding is £800,000, including £150,000 due to the Scottish Board of Health in respect of recoveries to be made from Scottish local authorities. Special efforts are being made to obtain repayment as far as possible before the 31st instant.

Mr. MOSLEY: 77.
asked the Minister of Health the number of cases in which building materials have been supplied to local authorities and other purchasers, and no claim has been made upon the purchasers; what is the total sum involved; and what is the explanation of the omission?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: As indicated in the Comptroller and Auditor-General's Report on the Appropriation Account for 1921–22, the Department have carried out a comprehensive investigation, and so far as can be ascertained there are no cases now remaining in which a claim has not been made upon the purchasers of building materials through the Department of Building Materials Supply.

ROYAL AIR FORCE (BOYS' TRAINING, HALTON).

Lieut.-Colonel POWNALL: 81.
asked the Secretary of State for Air how many boys are at present under training at the No. 1 school of technical training,
Halton; what is the total expenditure to date in respect of major new works (Part I of Estimates), excluding war liabilities; and what is the total estimated further expenditure, including the 1923–24 provision, on Part I of Vote?

The SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Lieut.-Colonel Sir Samuel Hoare): The number of boys at present under training at Halton is 1,353. Reference to page 32 of the Air Estimates will show that the total expenditure to the end of this month on item 44 of Part I, Vote Services, Boys' Training Establishment at Halton, is approximately £620,000, and the total estimated further expenditure is £10,000.

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

ORPINGTON HOSPITAL (RATIONS).

Mr. W. THORNE: 82.
asked the Minister of Pensions if he is aware that extra rations ordered by the ward doctor to ex-service men at the Orpington Hospital, Kent, have now been taken away on account of economy in the in stitution; if he can state who is responsible for the extra rations being taken away; and if he will take action in the matter?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Captain Craig): There has been no alteration in the dietary scale at this hospital, nor has there been any restriction as regards the issue of special diet above the scale as part of the medical requirements of the case.

WIDOWS' AND DEPENDANTS' ENTITLEMENT, SCOTLAND.

Mr. WILLIAM GRAHAM: 83.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is now in a position to announce his decision with reference to the recommendation of the Scottish regional advisory council of the Ministry that all entitlement in widows' and dependants' cases applying to Scotland should be decentralised to the Scottish region?

Captain CRAIG: It has been decided to decentralise to all regional offices entitlement in widows' and dependants' cases, and the necessary instructions will be issued shortly.

PALESTINE (DISTURBANCE, JERUSALEM).

Mr. PETO: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has had any report of the attack on a peaceful delegation of Arabs by police in Jerusalem in which several persons were wounded, and whether he is aware that the incident arouses great indignation throughout the whole Arab population of Palestine; and whether he will take immediate steps to ensure that the mandatory Government of Palestine acts in future with strict justice and impartiality to all races, and particularly promotes friendly feeling among the Arab population, and to allay the bad feeling created by the incident?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The facts of the incident are as follows: A proclamation was issued by the Palestine Arab Executive advising stoppage of work and closing of shops on Wednesday 14th, in honour of attitude adopted by the Arab nation at the elections. The Delegation arrived at Jerusalem Station on the same day. The cars conveying the members of the Delegation were accompanied by a large crowd of people proceeding at foot's pace for several hours. The police came in contact with the crowd at one point, when attempting to arrest certain individuals who were shouting provocative and abusive anti-Jewish and pro-Turkish songs. The arrests were made and the crowd dispersed. The behaviour of all sections of the police in trying circumstances was very good. The Delegation would probably have reached home quietly if it had not been for the proclamation issued by the Arab Executive. All is now quiet.

Oral Answers to Questions — IRISH FREE STATE.

DEPORTATIONS FROM GREAT BRITAIN.

Mr. J. RAMSAY MacDONALD: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what procedure is to be followed in the event of the Irish Free State Government making representations to him that, amongst the deportees, there are persons who have been guilty of indictable crime; would the trial of such persons take place in Ireland and, if so, for what reasons and under what conditions; particularly,
would an extradition order have to be issued first of all by an English magistrate and would the indicted person be present at the trial preceding the issue of such an order?

The ATTORNEY - GENERAL (Sir Douglas Hogg): I have been asked to reply. The arrangement with the Irish Free State Government is that no proceedings shall be instituted against any of these persons anywhere without the consent of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. My right hon. Friend will, of course, have to be satisfied that there is a primả-facie case before giving his consent, and he has arranged to consult with me in any matter of legal difficulty or doubt. When the consent is given, the person to be tried will be placed in exactly the same position, and dealt with in exactly the same way, as if he had not been deported. If the crime is one committed in England and triable there, application will be made to an English magistrate for a summons or warrant, and the case will be tried before an English magistrate and sent for trial by him, if a primậ facie case is made out. If the crime is one committed in Ireland and triable there, a warrant will be applied for before an Irish magistrate. It will be backed by an English magistrate under the provisions of Section 12 of the Indictable; Offences Act of 1848, and the accused person will then be tried before the Irish magistrate, and by him committed for trial, if a primậ facie case is made out. Whether the trial takes place before an English or an Irish magistrate, the accused person will be present.

Mr. W. THORNE: As far as these people are concerned, has the Habeas Corpus Act been suspended?

Mr. BUCHANAN: I want to know what would happen supposing that these men were, say, shot in gaol in Ireland in a fit of passion? What would be the position of the British Government who have deported them? [HON. MEMBERS: "Wait and see!"] I submit that that is an important point. [Interruption.] I have never been to either Oxford or Cambridge, but I have manners. Anything might happen to these men, and I want to know what is the responsibility of the British Government, should anything untoward happen to these men while they are there.

Mr. SPEAKER: That is a matter on which I have a question by the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury).

Captain BENN: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether these deportees will have the right, if they desire, of personal access to the Advisory Committee?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Yes, and I ought to say that the third member of the Advisory Committee is Sir Matthew Wallace, J.P., ex-President of the Scottish Chamber of Agriculture, member of the Royal Commission, Defence of the Realm (Losses), 1915–1920, and member of the War Compensation Court. There will be access to the Committee for any of the deportees who wish to see them.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: What means were there for a solicitor on behalf of any one of these deportees to get into touch with his client during the last few days, and, particularly, what is the position in respect of George Clancy, of Manchester, whose solicitor sent a letter on behalf of this man which has not yet reached him?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I was not aware of the matter referred to in the last part of the hon. Gentleman's question, but if he will send me a statement of facts, I will be glad to inquire into them.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that certain Scottish Members made an effort to get across to meet certain of their constituents, and were not provided with those full facilities to which they thought they were entitled for conversation with these men and inquiry into the subject?

The ATTORNEY - GENERAL: In answer to a question like this, I gave last week a statement made by the Free State Government that the internees would be allowed to see their legal advisers on points of law and to receive communications from their friends; but I must leave it to the Free State Government to make regulations with regard to other people.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Seeing that the British Government take the responsibility for arresting and deporting these men, why cannot they take the responsibility of allowing, without the sanction of the Free State, Scottish
Members to be with these men? Is the reason that they are afraid that we might get to know the real position and the real reason why these men were arrested?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Bridge-man): That is not the reason, but I believe that in the case of all internees there are regulations as to the number of times the internees can see their friends, and which friends they can be allowed to see.

Sir J. SIMON: To clear up a misapprehension, do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that these men would be entitled to see their legal advisers on points of law? Is it not the case that they would be entitled to see their authorised legal advisers as to their defence and their case quite generally?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Yes.

Mr. MAXTON: Am I right in believing that neither the Home Office nor the Scottish Office has any copy of the Regulations and the conditions as to the admission of legal advisers or of visitors to these persons interned in Ireland, and that in fact we have lost all possibility of access to these men?

HON. MEMBERS: Answer.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: It is not a fact that access to these men has been lost.

Mr. MACLEAN: If any of these deported people make application either to the Attorney-General or the Home Secretary or to the Secretary for Scotland on the grounds that they wish to be tried under the extradition law, will they be allowed to come back to this country where the trial will be held, and the jurisdiction under which they were taken from this country to Ireland submitted to a British court?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I think that this question is based on a misapprehension of what I explained before was the procedure with regard to these deported persons. Their position, if there is any attempt to try them, will be exactly the same as if they had not been deported. That is with respect to people who are wanted in Ireland, for an offence committed there, and are resident in England, under Section 12 of the Act of 1848, to which I have already
referred, the procedure is by backing a warrant, and not under the Fugitive Offenders Act. So the procedure against these people will be the same as against any other person wanted for offences in Ireland, and no extradition proceedings are available for persons wanted in Ireland.

Mr. MACLEAN: Is it not a fact that the Attorney-General is going back to an Act passed before the Free State Act was passed?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Of course I am going back to an Act which was passed before the Act of 1922, for the simple reason that the law remains the same, and it was expressly enacted in the 1922 Act that both with regard to Ireland and England it should remain the same. Until it is altered it is the only Act under which these people can be dealt with.

Mr. CLYNES: Have any steps been taken to inform fully the persons arrested of the conditions and facilities covering the replies which he has given this afternoon?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I am afraid that I would like to have notice of that question.

Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: Is it not a fact that these men have been deported under a Statute made by this House which expressly suspended the Habeas Corpus Act with reference of rebellion in Ireland, and that these men are simply shut up and that there is no necessity whatever for all these questions?

Mr. BUCHANAN: In view of the unsatisfactory answers, may I be allowed to move the Adjournment of the House on a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the failure of the Government to provide access to the interned persons by their Parliamentary representatives.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must ask leave to make that Motion when we have disposed of the other questions.

Mr. PRINGLE: May I repeat the question of the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) which the Home Secretary did not answer, namely, whether the Home Office or the Scottish Office actually know
the regulations regarding access made by the Irish Free State Government?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I should like to have notice of that question. Obviously, I do not want to misquote.

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: May I ask whether, on the Internment Orders which the right hon. Gentleman signed, the place of internment was in Ireland?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Yes, Sir.

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: How is it that such a place of internment can be mentioned, considering that Ireland is now outside the jurisdiction of the Restoration of Order in Ireland Act?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The warrant said a place within the Free State portion of Ireland.

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: Is it not a fact that the Free State is now outside the jurisdiction of the Restoration of Order in Ireland Act?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: No, Sir.

Mr. SAKLATVALA: May we take it from the answers given that there is no possibility of any of the interned persons being tried by court-martial in Ireland?

The ATTORNEY - GENERAL: Certainly, there is no such possibility.

Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: May I ask whether a citizen of this country, born in this country and living all his or her life in this country, who happened to be of Irish or other blood but is actually a British subject, can be tried in Ireland for an offence alleged to have been committed in Ireland without previously having an extradition order given by a British court, a court of the country in which he has been born and has lived; and whether there is any case in legal history where a British subject or any other subject—a French or a German subject—has been extradited for trial to another country without the due process of law in a police court giving the right of extradition?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: There are two questions. The first question is whether somebody resident in this country and born here—it makes no difference, of course, where they were born—can be tried in Ireland for an offence committed in Ireland. The answer is "Yes." The
second question is whether or not there is a precedent for somebody to be moved from this country without due process of law. Again, the answer is "No," and it is not without due process of law that these people were moved if such an event took place. It is only because, as I understand the law, that one means of bringing a person resident in England to Ireland for trial for an offence committed in Ireland—[Interruption.] If the offence be committed in England and triable in England, obviously they would not be moved to Ireland—[HON. MEMBERS: "They have been."]—and my answer to the hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, I think, made that clear; at least, I tried to make it clear. The question addressed to me just now was one with regard to people who were charged with an offence triable in Ireland, and the question was whether they would be removed to Ireland although resident in this country. The answer is "Yes." But it does not depend upon their being interned; it depends upon the fact that the English law provides that a person resident in England and wanted for an offence triable in Ireland can only be obtained on an Irish warrant backed in this country.

Mr. MacDONALD: Are we to understand that in this warrant the right hon. Gentleman inserted a place under the jurisdiction of the Irish Government as being the place to which he sent deportees from this country? And are we to understand that the Irish Free State Government recognises the jurisdiction of the right hon. Gentleman in fixing places of internment in their country?

Mr. BR1DGEMAN: I did not name the actual place for the internment. The Regulation gives me power to intern these people in the British Isles.

Mr. J. JONES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that at least half-a-dozen of the people arrested in London have never been in Ireland in their lives?

Mr. O'CONNOR: Can the Attorney-General give me any instance where the French Government or the German Government or any other Government has been able by mere order of the Home Secretary to extradite from this country a person accused of a crime in France,
Germany, or wherever it may be, without due application and due approval of that extradition by the Courts of this country?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is the very question which was asked last Monday, and on which the Adjournment of the House was moved and debated—the question of the power of the Home Secretary, and also his discretion in using that power.

Mr. MacDONALD: May I push this question further? Is it not a fact that the warrant issued by the right hon. Gentleman regarding the place of detention is vague and mentions no place at all, but simply states "in such place as the Irish Free State Government may determine," and, if so, is that in accordance with the provisions of the Orders issued under the Act of 1922?

Mr. BR1DGEMAN: Yes, it is in accordance with those provisions. The words which the hon. Gentleman has read out are, I think, the words contained in the actual warrant. I think he is reading from the warrant.

Mr. MacDONALD: I am.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Yes, and it is perfectly correct. The power I have under that Order is to send people for internment in the British Isles.

Mr. PRINGLE: Is it the "British Isles" or the "United Kingdom," because the "United Kingdom" has ceased to exist?

Captain BENN: Is there any precedent whatever for the Home Secretary ordering the internment of these persons in an area outside his jurisdiction?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I should like notice of that question.

Mr. WRIGHT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a number of the deportees have not yet communicated with their friends at all, and will provision be made to remove anxiety from the minds of their parents and relatives with regard to the place where they are interned?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I think that point comes up on the question to be asked by the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury).

Mr. LANSBURY: (by Private Notice) asked the Home Secretary if he will inform the House in what districts the prison or internment camps are situated to which British citizens and citizens of the Irish Free State have been deported; whether he is aware that many persons have been shot during imprisonment in Mountjoy Prison, and that many windows in this building have been destroyed. [Laughter.] It is very nice to laugh at people being shot. Will the right hon. Gentleman inform the House what Act of Parliament gives him authority to deport British citizens, assumed to be guilty of crimes against the Government of Great Britain, out of this country to countries outside the judicial jurisdiction of this country; and, further, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are no visiting justices of the Irish prisons, such office having been abolished?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I am informed that all the interned prisoners are lodged in Mountjoy Prison, and that any change of location of internment will be duly notified to their relatives. As I have already explained, these persons are interned in the Irish Free State in pursuance of orders made by me or by the Secretary for Scotland in the exercise of powers conferred by the Restoration of Order in Ireland Act, 1920. As regards the last part of the question, I would observe that these persons are interned, and therefore no question of visiting justices arise.

Mr. LANSBURY: Is it not a fact well known to everyone here that many persons—not one or two—have been shot, not in the ordinary way, judicially? [Laughter.] I do not know what there is to laugh at. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that prisoners have been shot at accidentally and casually, and is there any guarantee that on exercising in the grounds, or even in their own cells, some of these British citizens will not be shot in the same way?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: No, I am not aware of those facts. I have already said that the Irish Free State Government have undertaken to do nothing but intern these men and women without agreement with His Majesty's Government.

Mr. LANSBURY: It is not a question of the Irish Free State Government order-
ing the execution, but of men being shot in those prisons merely by accident. [Laughter.] You will probably be shot some day yourselves.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I must presume that the Irish Free State Government will provide for the safety of these men.

Mr. SPEAKER: If we are to have a Debate on this subject at 8.15, we must not have one now.

Mr. MACLEAN: I should like to ask the Home Secretary if it be not the case that a Warrant ordering the internment of an individual must state specifically the place where that individual is to be interned?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I understand not.

Mr. BUCHANAN: (by Private Notice) asked the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health, Scotland, whether he is aware that many of the families of the men who have been arrested and deported to Ireland are approaching a state of destitution; and whether any arrangements are being made for their maintenance apart from the Poor Law?

Captain ELLIOT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health, Scotland): No such cases have been brought to my notice. If such cases arise, the question will be considered, taking account of the practice in cases arising under similar Regulations in the past.

Mr. O'CONNOR: I presume that observation will apply to Ireland, and that inquiries will be made as to the condition of those families.

At the end of Questions—

Mr. BUCHANAN: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House in order to call attention to a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the situation of the deportees in Mountjoy Prison, in Ireland, and the responsibility of His Majesty's Government in the matter.

The PRIME MINISTER: On a point of Order. I submit that that is precisely the same question as was debated last week.

Mr. LANSBURY: Before you answer that point of Order, Mr. Speaker, may I suggest that the question of the safety of the prisoners was not discussed last
week at all. We had then no knowledge where the prisoners were.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member who raised this question is not very experienced in drafting. I think that the point to which he wishes to call attention is this—the failure of the Government to maintain control over the conditions under which the persons are interned. That, I think, is a question which was not covered by the Debate of last week.

Mr. BUCHANAN: That is the point, and I must thank you for the correction. I will redraft my Motion in accordance with your wishes.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House, in order to call attention to a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the neglect of the Government to maintain control over the conditions under which the persons deported are interned in Ireland. Has the hon. Member the leave of the House?

The pleasure of the House not having been signified, Mr. Speaker called on those Members who supported the Motion to rise in their places, and not fewer than 40 Members having accordingly risen,

The Motion stood over, under Standing Order No. 10, until a quarter past Eight this evening.

DEVONPORT DOCKYARD (DISCHARGES).

Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH-COOKE: (by Private Notice) asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that nearly 100 apprentices and ex-apprentices in His Majesty's Dockyard, Devonport, have just received their notices of discharge, to take effect in a fortnight's time; that this number, with few exceptions, includes the whole of the 1917 shipwrights; and will be explain how he reconciles these discharges with the recent statement, made on behalf of the Government, that, apart from any question of a new ship-building programme, there is plenty of work to keep the present staff fully employed for some years to come, and in view of the absence of any industry in Devonport or Plymouth, will he say in what way it is proposed to find work for these men?

The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Amery): As stated by my hon. Friend, a number of shipwrights, who have recently completed their apprenticeship, are being discharged from Devon-port Dockyard. This discharge is due to the necessity for adjusting the numbers in the different trades, the number of shipwrights being at present disproportionately large. Obviously, discharges in particular trades are always liable to be necessary, even when the total dockyard numbers are not being reduced, and, moreover, I was referring to the relatively stabilised position which would be reached, at the commencement of the new financial year. I do not, therefore, regard these discharges, much as I regret the necessity for them, as in any way at variance with the assurance I was able to give, in this House the other day.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: But will the right hon. Gentleman say what work he proposes to find for these men?

DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT, 1920.

Dr. CHAPPLE: I wish to raise a point of Order which appears to me to be of considerable importance, involving, as it does, an encroachment upon the rights and privileges of the House. The late Home Secretary issued a draft Regulation amending the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1920. He issued it on 3rd August last, and the 40 days under the Rules Publication Act expired on 12th September. That Regulation has had practically the force of law ever since, so that nearly six months have elapsed, during which time a Regulation issued by the Home Secretary on 3rd August has practically had the force of law. Section 5 of the Rules issued under the Dangerous Drugs Act, 1920, is to the effect that no practitioner can prescribe for himself any drugs mentioned in the Schedule, such as cocaine and morphia. Section 11 of the Dangerous Drugs Act requires that any Regulations under that Act shall be laid forthwith, but this Regulation was not laid until 1st March. Therefore, a law has been made practically by the Department and has not been ratified by this House. It ought to have been laid on 12th September last, but it was not laid until 1st March. I want to know whether that is not an irregularity and whether the Regulations ought not to be with-
drawn? At present it appears to me that the Home Department can issue Regulations and allow any time whatever to elapse, during which time the Regulations have the validity of law. Is it an irregularity with which you can deal?

Major MOLSON: I wish to associate myself with the remarks of the last speaker. The British Medical Association protested last July against this Order. The Order has been carried into force without the consent, authority or knowledge of this House. It limits the power of duly qualified medical practitioners to prescribe for themselves. I consider that that has been done without the authority of the House and in an irregular way.

Mr. SPEAKER: It is not for me to say whether the action of the Department has been legal or not. This does not appear to me to be a point of Order, but a point of law. If any irregular action has been taken by the Ministry, then I imagine that any hon. Member,

or anyone who has been harmed by such action, has the Courts of Law open to him. There is no point of Order. If the Regulations were laid on a certain date— I think it was 2nd February—

Dr. CHAPPLE: It was promulgated on 2nd October last.

Mr. SPEAKER: They were laid during the present Session of Parliament, and the number of days, as far as I am concerned, dates from that time. What happened in the interval may be a legal question, but it is not a point of Order on which I can express an opinion.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on the Unemployment Insurance Bill be exempted at this day's Sitting from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."— [The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 247; Noes, 131.

Division No. 46.]
AYES.
[4.28 p.m.


Adkins, Sir William Ryland Dent
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Fraser, Major Sir Keith


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Frece, Sir Walter de


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton, East)
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord R. (Hitchin)
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S,
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Furness, G. J.


Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Ganzoni, Sir John


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Wilfrid W.
Chapman, Sir S.
Gardiner, James


Astor, J. J. (Kent, Dover)
Churchman, sir Arthur
Gates, Percy


Astor, Viscountess
Clarry, Reginald George
Gaunt, Rear-Admiral Sir Guy R.


Baird, Rt. Hon. Sir John Lawrence
Clayton, G. C.
George, Major G. L. (Pembroke)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Coates, Lt.-Col. Norman
Gilbert, James Daniel


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Goff, Sir R. Park


Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.
Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Gray, Harold (Cambridge)


Barlow, Rt. Hon. Sir Montague
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Greaves-Lord, Walter


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale
Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E-


Barnston, Major Harry
Cotts, Sir William Dingwall Mitchell
Guthrie, Thomas Maule


Barrle, Sir Charles Coupar (Banff)
Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South)
Gwynne, Rupert S.


Becker, Harry
Cralk, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.


Bell, Lieut.-col. W. C H. (Devizes)
Crook, C. W. (East Ham, North)
Hall, Rr-Admi Sir W.(Llv'p'l,W.D'by)


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Crooke, J. S. (Deritend)
Halstead, Major D.


Bennett, Sir T. J. (Sevenoaks)
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Berry, Sir George
Daiziel, Sir D. (Lambeth, Brixton)
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)


Betterton, Henry B.
Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead)
Harrison. F. C.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Davies, J. C. (Denbigh, Denbigh)
Harvey, Major S. E.


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Hawke, John Anthony


Blundell, F. N.
Dawson, Sir Philip
Hay, Major T. W. (Norfolk, South)


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Dixon, C. H. (Rutland)
Henderson, Sir T. (Roxburgh)


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Doyle, N. Grattan
Hennessy, Major J, R. G.


Brass, Captain W.
Edge, Captain Sir William
Herbert, Col. Hon. A. (Yeovil)


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Edmondson, Major A, J.
Herbert Dennis (Hertford, Watford)


Briggs, Harold
Ednam, Viscount
Herbert, S. (Scarborough)


Brittain, Sir Harry
Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Hewett, Sir J. P.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Newbury)
Ellis, R. G.
Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank


Brown, Major D. C. (Hexham)
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Hiley, Sir Ernest


Bruton, Sir James
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.


Buckingham, Sir H.
Erskine-Bolst, Captain C.
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D.(St. Marylebone)


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Evans, Capt. H. Arthur (Leicester, E.)
Hood, Sir Joseph


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Evans, Ernest (Cardigan)
Hopkins, John W. W.


Burn, Colonel Sir Charles Rosdew
Falcon, Captain Michael
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)


Burney, Com. (Middx., Uxbridge)
Falls, Major Sir Bertram Godfray
Howard, Capt. D. (Cumberland, N.)


Butcher, Sir John George
Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.
Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Col. C. K.


Butler, H. M. (Leeds, North)
Flanagan, W. H.
Hudson, Capt. A.


Cadogan, Major Edward
Foreman, Sir Henry
Hughes, Collingwood


Cautley, Henry Strother
Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot
Hurd, Percy A.


Hutchison, G. A. C. (Midlothian, N.)
Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J (Westminster)
Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)


Hutchison, W. (Kelvingrove)
Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John
Shepperson, E. W.


Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Shipwright, Captain D.


James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Paget, T. G.
Sinclair, Sir A.


Jarrett, G. W. S,
Parker, Owen (Kettering)
Singleton, J. E.


Jodrell, Sir Neville Paul
Pease, William Edwin
Skelton, A. N.


Joynson-Hicks, Sir William
Penny, Frederick George
Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)


Kennedy, Captain M. S. Nigel
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


King, Captain Henry Douglas
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Somerville, Daniel (Barrow-in-Furness)


Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Perring, William George
Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L.


Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Colonel G. R.
Peto, Basil E.
Stanley, Lord


Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C.)
Pielou, D. P.
Stewart, Gershom (Wirral)


Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Pilditch, Sir Philip
Stott, Lt.-Col. W. H.


Lewis, Thomas A.
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton.


Lloyd-Greame, Rt. Hon. Sir P.
Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Privett, F. J.
Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)


Lorden, John William
Rankin, Captain James Stuart
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Lorimer, H. D.
Rawllnson, Rt. Hon. John Fredk. Peel
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Lowe, Sir Francis William
Rawson, Lieut.-Com. A. C.
Turton, Edmund Russborough


Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)
Reid, D. D. (County Down)
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Lumley, L. R.
Remer, J. R.
Wallace, Captain E.


Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Remnant, Sir James
Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)


McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)
Rentoul, G. S.
Warner, Sir T. Courtenay T.


Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Reynolds, W. G. W.
Watson, Capt. J. (Stockton-on-Tees)


Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)
Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend)
Wells, S. R.


Manville, Edward
Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir p. (Chertsey)
Weston, Colonel John Wakefield


Margesson, H. D. R.
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)
White, Lt.-Col. G. D. (Southport)


Mercer, Colonel H.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. Sir S. (Ecclesall)
Winterton, Earl


Milne, J. S. Wardlaw
Robertson, J. D. (Islington, W.)
Wise. Frederick


Molloy, Major L. G. S.
Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stretford)
Wolmer. Viscount


Molson, Major John Elsdale
Rogerson, Capt. J. E.
Wood, Rt. Hn. Edward F. L. (Ripon)


Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.
Roundell, Colonel R. F.
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Ruggles-Brise, Major E.
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Morden, Col. W. Grant
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Yate. Colonel Sir Charles Edward


Moreing, Captain Algernon H.
Russell, William (Bolton)
Yerburgh, R. D. T.


Morrison, Hugh (Wilts, Salisbury)
Russell-Wells, Sir Sydney
Young, Rt. Hon. E. H. (Norwich)


Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)



Murchison, C. K.
Sanders, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert A.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)
Sandon, Lord
Colonel Leslie Wilson and Colonel Gibbs


Newson, Sir Percy Wilson
Shakespeare, G. H.



NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Groves, T.
Millar, J. D.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Grundy, T. W.
Morel, E. D.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)


Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Mosley, Oswald


Attlee, C. R.
Harbord, Arthur
Muir, John W.


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertlilery)
Hardle, George D.
Murray, Hon. A. C. (Aberdeen)


Barnes, A.
Harris, Percy A.
Nichol, Robert


Batey, Joseph
Hay, Captain J. P. (Cathcart)
O'Connor, Thomas P.


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Hayday, Arthur
O'Grady, Captain James


Bennett, A. J. (Mansfield)
Hayes, John Henry (Edge Hill)
Paling, W.


Berkeley, Captain Reginald
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Phillipps, Vivian


Bonwick, A.
Hillary, A. E.
Ponsonby, Arthur


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hinds, John
Potts, John S.


Briant, Frank
Hirst, G. H.
Pringle, W. M. R.


Broad, F. A.
Hodge, Rt. Hon. John
Richards, R.


Brotherton, J.
Hogge, James Myles
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Buchanan, G.
Hutchison, Sir R. (Kirkcaldy)
Roberts. C. H. (Derby)


Buckle, J.
Irving, Dan
Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Burgess, S.
Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)
Royce, William Stapleton


Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Saklatvala, S.


Chapple, W. A.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Salter, Dr. A.


Charleton, H. C.
Jowitt, W. A. (The Hartlepools)
Scrymgeour, E.


Clarke, Sir E. C.
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
Sexton, James


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Kenyon, Barnet
Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)


Darbishire, C. W.
Kirkwood, D.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Lansbury, George
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lawson, John James
Simpson, J. Hope


Duffy, T. Gavan
Leach, W.
Smith, T. (Pontefract)


Duncan, C.
Lee, F.
Snowden, Philip


Ede, James Chuter
Lees-Smith, H. B. (Keighley)
Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)


Edmonds, G.
Linfield, F. C.
Stephen, Campbell


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Lowth, T.
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)


Entwistle, Major C. F.
MacDonald, J. R. (Aberavon)
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Falconer, J.
M'Entee, V. L.
Thornton, M.


Gosling, Harry
McLaren, Andrew
Tillett, Benjamin


Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Trevelyan, C. P.


Gray, Frank (Oxford)
March, S.
Turner, Ben


Greenall, T.
Marshall, Sir Arthur H.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Coins)
Maxton, James
Webb, Sidney


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Middleton, G.
Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.




Weir, L. M.
Wignall, James
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Westwood, J.
Williams, David (Swansea, E.)



Wheatley, J.
Williams. T. (York, Don Valley)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


While, H. G. (Birkenhead, E.)
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)
Mr. Morgan Jones and Mr. Lunn.


Whiteley, W.
Wright, W.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEE).

STANDING COMMITTEE B.

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee B (added in respect of the Fees (Increase) Bill): Captain Brass; and had appointed in substitution: Captain Hudson.

STANDING COMMITTEE C.

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee C: Mr. Banks; and had appointed in substitution: Brigadier-General Makins.

Reports to lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BILL.

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Disqualification for unemployment benefit.)

Sub-section (1) of Section eight of the principal Act is hereby repealed, and the following shall be substituted therefor:—

(1) An insured contributor who has lost employment by reason of a stoppage of work which was due to a trade dispute at the factory, workshop, or other premises at which he was employed shall be disqualified for receiving unemployment benefit so long as the stoppage of work continues, except in a case where he has, during the stoppage of work become bonả fide employed elsewhere in the occupation which he usually follows or has become regularly engaged in some other occupation, and except in a case where, although employed in the same factory, workshop, or other premises he does not himself participate in such trade dispute, and the terms and conditions of his contract of service are not the subject of such trade dispute.

Where separate branches of work which are commonly carried on as separate businesses in separate promises are in any case carried on in separate departments on the same premises, each of those departments shall, for the purposes of this provision, be deemed to be a separate factory, or workshop, or separate premises, as the case may be.—[Mr. Clynes.]

Brought up and read the First time.

Mr. CLYNES: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This Clause covers a subject which has been discussed in this House more than once, and many of the points involved are familiar to hon. Members. The operative words are
except in a case where, although employed in the same factory, workshop or other premises, he does not himself participate in such trade dispute and the terms and conditions of his contract of service are not the subject of such trade dispute.
These words mean that the workman who is stopped from following his employment through a dispute at his place of employment, in no way affecting him, shall be entitled to unemployment benefit during the period of such a stoppage. The Clause contemplates a case where the man
is in no sense a party to the dispute and where the issues in the dispute in no way affect the conditions of employment or the interests of the workman himself. In short it proposes to deal with the cases of men who are absolutely unconnected with the dispute or with the issues which may exist between employer and employed in the dispute. I think there is not in any quarter of the House any real objection to the intentions and motives of this new Clause on grounds of right. On grounds of right and equity there has been, from the beginning of the controversy, an admission that men who were so unfortunately placed as to be deprived of their work through the fault of somebody else, had a claim for benefit during the whole of that stoppage. I will go as far as to say, as indeed is proven by instances in this House and in Committee upstairs, that a large number of employers quite accept the intentions and conditions of the new Clause. I have heard employers in this House, on a former occasion, support in the strongest terms of advocacy the Clause which is now before us. I do not say that remark applies to all employers, but I urge that there is a considerable body of opinion among employers in favour of the Clause, and, therefore, it is not a matter of ordinary conflict between employer and employed. I think it is true to say that all along the question of unemployment insurance has been one in connection with which the House has tried to do the just thing. As our knowledge of it broadened, and as time went on, men who had been excluded have been brought in, conditions have been improved, opportunities for benefit have been afforded, and every feature of the insurance law has been made better. We ought not to stop at this instance of distress, and to say that the man who is the victim of other people's quarrels is to have nothing whatever done for him. Such a man ought to be treated in some degree in the spirit of the amendments and improvements which have been made in our insurance law. I submit that argument with all the greater confidence because we are only asking for these particular victims that benefit for which they have paid. It is not as though State funds were being provided, as in the case of certain other forms of support.
There may well be instances of workmen or groups of workmen who never suffer a condition of unemployment
except during the period of an industrial dispute between employer and employed. There are men fortunate enough to be in occupations not subject to such conditions of industrial pressure as now prevail, and these men could go on for 10 or 20 years paying to the unemployment fund under legal compulsion and yet be subject to no stoppage except a stoppage during one or two periods as the result of a strike or lockout of other employés. Surely it is unfair that such men should be deprived of the opportunity of receiving the benefit for which they have paid, in respect of such cases—perhaps the only periods during which they have been thrown out of employment in a long spell of work. Our plea is for simple justice and fairness to men who are the totally innocent victims of a quarrel between two other parties. We are not asking the Government to take sides in trade disputes. We know well what the answer would be if we did so, and it has never entered into our minds to do so. There is no intention of seeking to use the fund under the Unemployment Insurance Act for the purpose of sustaining or supporting men involved in a dispute or in any way helping parties to the dispute. Let the two sides provide whatever support they can during the continuance of their trouble, no matter who begins it; but the claim we make is for the innocent third party who could in no way avert the dispute and whose conditions will not be affected as a result of the dispute. It is not, then, a matter of asking the Government to take sides as between two belligerents in an industrial quarrel, but we say that it is the proper function of the Government to provide the legitimate support, for which the insured person has duly paid, for that person when he is stopped from working through circumstances over which he has absolutely no control. The fact is that, if such men are not secured in these rights, they must be supported in some other manner, and it may well be, and, indeed, has been the case, that men thrown out of employment through no fault of their own, with only the most slender means, with no savings or resources equal to their needs, have been driven upon relief agencies and upon boards of guardians, and they have had to be kept out of the rates at a time when the right was withheld to give them ordinary State benefit for which they had
paid their contributions. The choice, then, is really between throwing men upon the condition of pauper relief and giving them, under more dignified conditions, that amount of financial State right to which they are entitled under the law which we are now considering.
I approach the last point that I want to put in relation to this new Clause. On more than one occasion the spokesmen of the Government on this subject have intimated their desire to reach a settlement of the question, to find some formula that would enable them to do justice to the aggrieved parties, and at the same time a formula that would be acceptable to the interests of employers and employed who may be involved in any quarrel. I have only the OFFICIAL REPORT of discussions upstairs during the period when this Bill was recently in Committee to guide me as to that experiment so far tried by the Government, and that Report shows that during the summer of last year the Committee which had been created with a view to producing a formula had sat and considered the matter, that the representatives of the workmen's point of view on that Committee submitted some written document outlining their formula, and that that is as far as the Committee appears to have gone. I have no adequate information to justify me in criticising the work of that Committee, but I think the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Labour will be better acquainted with the work of that Committee and its position than any other Member of this House can be. It is for him to say whether this is the opportune moment for discussing any work which that Committee has so far done, but I submit this, at any rate, as a fact, that if that Committee has failed so far to find a formula, that failure is not due to any lack of effort on the part of the workmen's representatives on that Committee. They have submitted in proper form what they believe are the terms which might well be agreed to in order to find a solution for this trouble, and as Labour has not been wanting in this endeavour, I ask that, in the event of there being a failure on the part of this Committee— failure due either to lack of effort on one side or the other or failure through inability to agree on the part of both sides— if, for whatever reason, there be finally a break of efforts that might be made by this Committee, then I say it is the busi-
ness of the Government to accept its responsibility and provide a solution which others have been unable to provide.
The one thing from which a Government ought never to try to escape is its responsibility for solving a problem, and clearly it has been fully admitted more than once that the right of the dispossessed workman to his benefit is a right which ought not to be alienated by any practice that so far has been followed, and that therefore this right has been strengthened by the time which has passed and by the suffering which has been endured. I think, therefore, that if my right hon. Friend cannot accept the words as they are submitted on the Paper, though I hope he may be able to see his way to do that, we shall have some definite assurance that the Government responsibility is not to be evaded. I repeat that this is a right for which men have paid, they are the victims of the quarrels of other people, they are totally innocent of any wrong, and their right of support is uniformly admitted. The practical difficulties, of course, have been considerable, but if those practical difficulties cannot be overcome by any Committee consisting of two rival interests, two interests obviously in conflict with each other, then it becomes at once the obvious duty of the Government to step in and provide a condition, by a change in the law, which will give the workman a right to which he is entitled.

Mr. HAYDAY: I beg to second the Motion.
I wish to reinforce, as far as possible, the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Platting (Mr. Clynes). I think it is well within the knowledge of Members of the House that, right away from the introduction of the 1911 Act, this particular Section of that and succeeding Acts has been the cause of much debate in the House and in Grand Committee. Indeed, I believe the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) was, in 1911, in charge of the Unemployment Bill then going before Committee, and he himself stated that that Section, in its then form, would doubtless cause endless trouble because of the difficulties in obtaining a satisfactory interpretation. So, as we have come down through the series of Acts that the Government of the day have found it necessary to introduce—six, all told, I believe, within the past three years
—we have constantly been called upon to discuss this point. Originally, I believe, the question of finding a formula was referred to a large representative body of employers and workpeople acting through their respective federations. Failure there to agree to any formula of words that could be accepted by the Ministry led last year to the then Labour Minister, the right hon. Member for North-West Camberwell (Dr. Macnamara), stating that he was prepared to set up an ad hoc Committee, and that if they could agree to a set of words that would be suitable for insertion in the Bill, he would not unduly raise objection, if it could be conveniently accepted by the two parties then concerned, namely, the employing interests and the industrial interests as represented by the workmen contributors.
We were then told that whilst such a formula, if forthcoming, could not be inserted in any temporary Measure, it might possibly be found convenient to agree to a Clause that could be inserted ready for the more permanent phase of the Unemployment Act, which, as determined at that time, would commence as from the end of June this year. The present Bill extends this special period until October, but I think I am justified in saying on the Floor of the House, without going unduly into the detailed business associated with that Committee, sufficient to let the House know that at least responsibility for failure to agree does not rest with the industrial section of that special Committee. We met in June of last year on two occasions. We met again in July, and submitted a memorandum as from the four representatives of the workmen's side. After the whole detail of that memorandum had been discussed, it was agreed—in fact, it was offered from the employers' side—that the employers would submit a memorandum arising out of the one we had submitted, in order that the two memorandums, exchanging group views representing the different interests, might bring us very close together, and enable us, at subsequent meetings, to present an agreed formula of words that could be accepted by the Minister of Labour. That, as I say, was in July of last year, but up to the moment the employers' side have not submitted a memorandum in reply to that submitted by those of us who were on the workers' side. It was promised by the Chairman
(Sir Thomas Munro) that we would have a meeting not later than some time in October of last year.
I mention that to the House, as I feel I am justified in doing, in order that at all events, whatever criticism may be made in regard to that Committee, the workers' side of it should be free from that criticism. The reason why, at our last meeting, we were unable to go further into the point of agreed words was the change in the Ministry that has taken place since our appointment and the present day. The fact of the Minister of Labour having issued a circular to employers' and workmen's associations asking for their views as to insurance by industries and other things, led the employers to state that that presented to them a difficulty against the continuance of this one specific point, and they asked that we should suspend our sittings until such time as the other questions, which they suggest have become involved, have been discussed and agreed upon by them. The employers have representatives in this House, and no doubt that will be explained during the course of the Debate, but the fact remains that we have had only four meetings and that there has been no agreed formula. It scarcely appears likely that there will be one in the very immediate future, because of the other question that has now become involved in this matter, namely, the question of insurance by industries, and one or two other points. That seems to me now to throw the responsibility back upon this House, and upon the Ministry itself. There is general agreement as to the hardship inflicted by the present Section of the Act. Wherever and whenever this matter is discussed and reasoned out, there is concession from the employers' point of view that these victims are unduly punished because of circumstances over which they have had no control.
5.0 P.M.
At times, however, they give expression to a doubt as to whether such a form of words can be found as would safeguard completely the possibility of collusion taking place between separate sections of industrialists in any particular trade or calling. It is only necessary to review the Umpires' decisions of the last two or three years to have it fully brought home to you that there must have been
many, many thousands of people who were thrown idle because of disputes and in consequence of being employed in the factory or workshop where the dispute originated, and who were disqualified from receiving unemployment benefit. I would venture to give again one or two examples. During the dislocation of the railway dispute there were in connection with a huge steel works certain members operating the locomotives bringing in the raw material from the sidings and main lines, who were members of the railway-men's association, and were involved in the general stoppage of the railwaymen. Those few men, by being in a state of dispute, at once involved the whole of the furnaces. No raw material could come in, and the result was that the furnaces closed down altogether with the forges and foundries, and these men were thrown out. Because of a dispute over which they had no control, but which cut off their machinery for raw material, they were all refused unemployment benefit on the ground that the Clause in the Act decrees that a state of dispute had occurred at their place of employment and that they were unemployed in consequence of that dispute.
You could take the case of a huge furnace company running its own foundry. There is a small section of men called metal-carriers that take the molten metal from the furnace side into the foundry. If that connecting link between furnace and foundry was in a state of dispute it could throw out of gear the work of the foundry, because of cutting off the supply of molten metal, and although those in the foundry would have no knowledge of the circumstances that led to the trouble, and would be in no way affected by its successful or unsuccessful termination, although they would have no power of intervention even if they cared to represent their disagreement with the act of the metal-carriers, yet, in consequence of the foundry being idle owing to a state of dispute among the small number of key men, they would all be thrown out of their right to claim unemployment benefit so long as the law-remains as it is at present. At blast furnaces, six or ten bricklayers, if in a state of dispute, could cause a furnace, through lack of attention and repair, to close down, and hundreds of workers— wheelrights, pattern-makers, carpenters, and the whole of the department—could
be thrown out of gear whilst the Act remains as it is, and the Minister would have no power to admit them to benefit, while the Referee would decide against them, if an appeal were made, because they were thrown idle in consequence of a dispute at their place of employment.
It is only necessary further to recall the recent engineering trouble. A dispute arises between the Engineering Employers' Federation and the members of the Engineering Union. There we find 47 other trade associations, who had no say in the dispute between the employer and the one section, who were not in any way jointly concerned in representation, involved because a state of lock-out is brought about as between the Engineering Union and the employers. Naturally, in the course of time works gradually closed down because of the absence of the engineering section. Others were thrown out, and if the employer, out of the fullness of his heart and with a desire not to do anything to deprive the victims of that quarrel between the employers and the engineering section of their benefit, said in answer to the Employment Exchange inquiry that the men were unemployed because he was unable to provide them with employment that at once admitted them to unemployment benefit, whereas where the employer replied that there was a dispute at his works between himself and the engineering union, and that consequently he could not employ these men so long as that state of dispute continued, automatically all those men were disqualified. Although you get exactly the same set of circumstances bringing about the idle period yet if, on the one hand, the report is made leaving out the word "dispute' the men can receive benefit, while, on the other hand, if it is reported to the Exchange that the period is in consequence of a dispute the men are cut adrift. This does appeal to those of us who have witnessed the long drawn out struggles in the past, who have seen that very often as a result of any dispute taking place the men's conditions are worse on their return to work, that they have been denied any right of saying anything about those conditions, have been denied the right of benefit from the Unemployment Fund, have been denied dispute benefit from their trade society because the society rightly says it is not a dispute between the society and the firm.
The Employment Exchange says that according to the Act the men are involved in a dispute with their firm, and between the whole lot this body of innocent sufferers is denied any claim or right to benefit at all.
I certainly do feel that it is not impossible for the Minister to accept these words. Clearly, they define this, and I think it is the fairest basis of admittance to the right to benefit should or should not be established to say that if a person is involved in a dispute and his conditions of service are the subject of that dispute then it is clear that no right to unemployment benefit can prevail, but that, if that person is thrown out in the course of somebody else's dispute, and his conditions of service and rates of wages or hours of labour are in no way involved, his contract of service remains the same, whether the dispute is successful to the contesting parties or not. If he remains the same, without having negotiating power at all, then clearly he has the right of entitlement to benefit from the unemployment fund. I cannot believe for a moment that it was ever the intention to exclude those who are thrown idle through circumstances over which they have had no control at all. I know there is an argument used on the other side, but I do not think it is justified. It is said that there may be six sections that would agree to put one in the forefront, would let it make the fight while the other five sections drew unemployment benefit and sustained the one section in a prolonged struggle. How can that be so? If six sections are involved, then the six have their conditions involved in the trouble, and in these days of joint representations and negotiations it is very easy to get that dividing line. It was said in the building trade that if the bricklayers were in trouble and the rest of the sections got unemployment benefit, the bricklayers being successful the others would automatically go up as well. But we have passed that stage. The present negotiations in the building trade are the result of a Federation negotiation, of joint representations and negotiations of all the sections in the building trade. The whole of their conditions are involved, every solitary section engaged in the building trade, so in the event of dispute there there could be no question as to right of claim. You might, however, easily have in the engineering, the shipbuilding, the blast furnace, the ironstone
mining, or many, many other industrial sections, a small section of key men that could involve the whole of the undertaking and every branch of industry in it. It is possible for six men to involve one thousand while they are deciding their struggle with the employer.
Knowing these things, I do urge that we should get one stage further. Between 12 and 13 years is a long time to be looking about to try to find a formula During the whole of those 12 years there must have been unnecessary hardship and suffering inflicted, because it is bad enough to be a victim while other people are scrapping without an opportunity to enter into the ordeal. It is bad enough to have to stand aside and be told that your conditions are not involved, that you will not be listened to, that, although you disagree with the action that has been taken, you have no say in the matter. There are times when the men who are thrown on to this kind of lack of support very often feel that the section who originally started the dispute ought not to have started it, but they have no say and no power. They have to stand by and suffer a long period of idleness, no matter how willing to work they may be. They must not and cannot work because the employers say the key men are out, and they cannot carry on. The men cannot go to the Employment Exchange; they cannot go to the organisation because it is not in dispute, and is not included in the negotiations; the guardians tell the men they are involved in a dispute, they look upon the men as active disputants in the controversy, and they get very scant consideration.
In the light of all these things, I do hope the right hon. Gentleman will carry us further along the road. I can just imagine that even after the question of insurance by industry has been considered by the Employers' Federation and workmen's associations, some other request will come along and perhaps when you are asking again to bring forward some permanent measure of unemployment benefit to cover these, someone will raise a query and will say that there is something else that must be considered first, that this cuts across the settlement of the question, and the Committee would be suspended again. I say that, in view of the importance of the business which the Committee had to perform, it ought at least
to have met more than four times. It ought to have had its formula long before the Minister's Circular was sent out, but the employers tell us there is a real difficulty in arriving at a conclusion upon this point, in consequence of this other matter, which they now have under consideration. I earnestly urge the acceptance of this Clause, and I hope it will not be long before we get a step further on the road towards eliminating all possibility of complaint.

Sir ALLAN SMITH: I am rather sorry this question has been brought before the House at this stage, because now we are compelled to apply our minds to the merits of the case, notwithstanding the fact that the Committee which has been sitting, and is now adjourned, has the duty to ascertain whether a remedy can be found. So far as we on the Committee are concerned, our function is taken from us by this House pronouncing whether an Amendment such as this suggested by the trade union representatives be accepted or not. If this Clause be argued on merits, it will be necessary to express an opinion on the merits of the case, which I should have much preferred in Committee, in order that there might be a friendly discussion with a view to finding a remedy such as everybody desires to see. I regret that it has been raised now, and I shall be bound to vote against this Clause. The difficulty which the Committee has had, so far as I am concerned, is that the real purpose of the Unemployment Insurance Act of 1911 was to provide for the unemployment that is caused by the ordinary fluctuations in trade, and it was not, under any circumstances, to be utilised for the purpose of financing trade disputes. The hon. Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Hayday) has just pointed out that, in his view, men who are rendered idle on account of a trade dispute, in which they are not directly concerned, are losing benefits for which they have paid; but I suggest to him that that is not the case. I suggest that if he were to read the discussions which took place when the Act was originally introduced and passed, he would then realise that the second paragraph of the new Clause now before the House is the original safeguard which was put into the Bill, and for this reason. It was felt that, while several trades are grouped together, in the case of trades that are normally carried on as separate processes, there
might be a hardship which could be dealt with in the way contained in the second paragraph. What the Act said by that Sub-section was that, notwithstanding that the scheme of the Act was to provide for unemployment in the ordinary way, there was a hardship which should be provided for, namely, the conglomeration of branches of industry or processes in the one factory, in order that men who are together in one factory should not be worse off than men employed in separate factories for separate processes. That was one of the difficulties we had in making up our mind as to what reply should be made to the trade union memorandum.
I quite accept what my hon. Friend has stated with regard to the action of the trade union members of the Committee. There were many things settled last autumn, one—not the least, perhaps— being that a change of Government took place, and, of course, we had to wait until we saw whether that Committee was to be continued in being, and for the purpose for which it was appointed. Again, I say, we were informed by the Ministry that our Report would not be required until July, when a general scheme of Unemployment Insurance would be brought forward. This Bill, which is purely a temporary Bill in the main, has been rushed through in order that certain difficulties might be got over, and it was fully realised, at the last meeting of the Committee, that it would be absolutely impossible for the Committee to come to a conclusion in time to have their conclusions embodied in this Bill. I think my hon. Friend will agree with that, as he was present when that arrangement was made. There is one thing I would suggest to him with reference to trade disputes, in which he was not directly concerned, and that is, that it might have been well if he had got the precise facts before he adduced the arguments he has. I think I may claim to have as much knowledge of the dispute last year, to which he referred, as anyone else, and I may say to him quite frankly that his facts were altogether wrong with regard to the 47 unions, who, he said, appeared as victims and not as parties in the dispute.
With regard to this Clause itself, it is not very clear what it means. It is true that the insured contributor who is under
the disqualification shall not get unemployment benefit. It says in a case where
he does not himself participate in such trade dispute, and the terms and conditions of his contract of service are not the subject of such trade dispute.
I do not know whether my hon. Friend was deliberate, but I rather think he has given the House an entirely wrong impression. One would think it was a simple matter, and easy of solution, but, may I remind the hon. Gentleman of my experience, which is probably his own, that you never can tell what is in a trade dispute until after it begins? I would remind him also that he and his friends are very able in bringing forward something which may appear to be a most inoffensive reason for a dispute, and, after we get into it, we find that many other things are underlying it, and one can never tell whose interests are affected, and whose are not. I submit that if this Clause were carried, there is no case of a trade dispute where a definition could be given of the exceptions contained in the Clause, and there is no case of a trade dispute where the extent of the latter portion of the first paragraph could be known, namely, as to the terms and conditions of his contract of service not being the subject of such trade dispute.
I do not want to go further than I have gone, because I do not want, in doing what I am at the moment, namely, objecting to this Clause, to prejudice any further discussion which may take place on the Joint Committee, which, I assume, will still continue to sit. There was an understanding, even although that Committee was not able to come to a conclusion in time for this Bill, that in the discussions which have taken place, and in the discussions which will take place, this question has not been, and will not be, lost sight of. May I remind the hon. Member of the terms of reference, which were to consider whether all industries ought to carry their own load of unemployment, and to deal with other matters generally which were germane to the question of Unemployment Insurance? Obviously, the question which is dealt with in the proposed Clause is not only a suitable subject, but a vital subject for consideration, if we are going to deal with the question whether industry is to carry its own load.

Mr. HAYDAY: It is not the terms of reference to the Committee of which we
are talking. It is the reference made by the employers to that question which caused them to suggest it could not go on. When the hon. Member mentions each industry carrying its own load of unemployment, to what body does he refer?

Sir A. SMITH: I mean the two main bodies on either side, the Federation of Employers and the Council of the Trade Union Congress. I was saying that if we are dealing with the question of industry carrying its own load, this is not only a suitable question, but an absolutely vital question, because, obviously, if each industry is going to carry its own load, it must contemplate the position of everyone employed in that industry, whether directly or indirectly affected by any trade dispute which may arise in that industry. Accordingly, I would much prefer not to go further than that, so far as this discussion is concerned. With regard to the general position, I think the House will agree as to what the insurance scheme under the 1911 Act and subsequent Acts is, namely, that it is an insurance scheme for unemployment due to the ordinary fluctuations of trade. It is not an insurance scheme for the purpose of dealing with men who are directly or indirectly affected by a trade dispute. For that reason, and the other reasons I have stated, I hope the House will reject this new Clause, and will allow the employers' and workpeople's representatives to continue their explorations, in order that they may come to a settlement which may be an agreed settlement, and, once for all, finish this controversy which has gone on for so many years.

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Montague Barlow): I do not desire to detain the House at any very great length, but I think the speeches to which we have already listened do emphasise what is present in the minds of those who are familiar with its topic, namely, the extreme difficulty that this problem presents, and it goes far to explain why it is that, although this difficulty has been discussed over and over again on the Floor of this House since 1911, no solution has yet been arrived at. I do not want to go into the actual words of this Clause. I could raise a good many difficulties with regard to the words—what does "participate" mean? And so on. They are not
difficulties of form, as my hon. Friend rather suggests. They are difficulties of substance, because, after all, it is not really any good, in a difficult matter of this kind, our contemplating putting words on the Statute Book, if we are satisfied that the words themselves would not carry with them a definite solution— in other words, they would not work Therefore, if I ventured to criticise the words, it would not be in any carping spirit, but to indicate that there would be great difficulty in working this Clause, even if it were carried.
What has been the situation since 1911? The situation broadly is this. This vital matter of the effect of trade disputes on payment of benefit is a matter in which two sides, the employers and the workers, are both fundamentally interested. The Clause as it at present stands on the Statute Book is a compromise arrived at between the two sides. I do not know that either side is particularly satisfied with that compromise, but still, there it is. I am drawing the attention of the Committee to the words of the compromise itself. They are, perhaps, not expressed in the most felicitous language or with absolute clarity, but the effect of the compromise is plain—
Section 8 (1). An insured contributor who has lost his employment by reason of a stoppage of work, which was due to a trade dispute at the factory, workshop, or other premises at which he was employed "—
in other words, the effect of a dispute is confined to the particular factory or workshop —
shall he disqualified for receiving unemployment benefit.
Then it goes on to say—and here comes the paragraph of exception which was agreed to by both sides—
Where separate branches of work which are commonly carried on as separate businesses in separate premises are in any case carried on in separate departments on the same premises, each of those departments shall, … be deemed to be a separate business, etc.
In other words, the workman so engaged, under conditions of separation, so to speak, of the premises, but which in fact, are identical, shall be treated for the purposes of the dispute as if engaged in a separate business, and shall be entitled to benefit. That was confined as I have stated, and the difficulty in regard to the working of it was expressed on the Floor of this House. As a result of that difficulty, the right hon. Gentleman the
Member for N.W. Camberwell (Dr. Macnamara) when he occupied the position that I now occupy, undertook on the last occasion, or the last but one, when the Insurance Bill was being considered to bring the question before a Committee representing both sides with Sir Thomas Munro as Chairman of the Committee, in order that the whole problem might be discussed de novo. We heard a good deal of the history of that Committee. I welcome the statement made by the hon. Member for South Croydon (Sir A. Smith) that this matter shall be reconsidered, or considered further in that Committee. I think that is the proper course.
When this matter was being discussed upstairs, I had a feeling, without in any way desiring to absorb the functions of the Committee, that it did appear to me that there were two possible ways of procedure. Here is a large debatable, difficult area, and a variety of cases could be given where the difficulty has arisen. An attempt has been made by a Committee, so far, to devise a general formula to cover the whole of the ground. In similar cases of difficulty those concerned sometimes find it easier not to proceed by means of a general formula. They say: "This is a debatable area; we will try to limit the area of the debatable ground by a series of exceptions." I suggest that would be a possible means of procedure in this case. I suggest it would be possible for the Committee, if it cannot devise a general formula, to take the exception in the last paragraph, and see if it can be extended. At any rate, in the Committee I undertook to ask Sir Thomas Munro's Committee to meet again, and to reconsider the matter; without in any way desiring to interfere with the course of discussion, to consider the matter from that point of view. That undertaking I gave, and I naturally repeat it here.
It is true that this question of trade dispute disqualification, like a good many other questions, will probably have to come up for final adjustment and settlement when we get to more normal times, and when as we are agreed it will probably be necessary to put this insurance on a proper permanent basis. Progress is being made along the lines of the settlement of this dispute, but better progress must be made in view of the need ulti-
mately of a settlement on a permanent basis. I issued for that purpose a Memorandum dealing with unemployment insurance by industry when I was with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Camberwell when he was Minister of Labour. It has been suggested that that action has in some way delayed the solution of the matter, that I cut across—I think is the phrase used—the work of the Committee. It was with no intention of that kind that that Memorandum was issued. I have some difficulty in really appreciating precisely why that effect was produced by that Memorandum. However, I do not want to go into a discussion on that, but I do say I will refer to the Committee the suggestion I have made, and I venture to hope that along that line or something like that line, it may be, we shall make some progress while waiting for the ultimate production of unemployment insurance legislation. With that assurance—because I must put it to the House—I make an appeal to the House that we should make as much progress as possible, and as rapidly, and to the hon. Gentleman whether he could not see his way to withdraw this Amendment, and let us proceed to the next business.

Sir JOHN SIMON: I hope the House will allow me a few minutes because of what my hon. Friend the Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Hayday) said. I had some personal responsibility and took a very great interest in the original framing of the Section which has just been referred to, but I must not allow him to stand uncorrected when he says that I was responsible for the original Unemployment Insurance Act. That is not so.

Mr. HAYDAY: I referred to the Act of 1911.

Sir J. SIMON: The Cabinet Minister responsible for the Act of 1911 was the President of the Board of Trade, Mr. Sydney Buxton, now Lord Buxton. He was my foreman; I was merely the labourer. We worked together. I should not for a moment like it to go forward that I should have the credit of that legislation, though I am not unprepared to take some part of any blame. I have listened carefully to the Minister of Labour, and I really am not quite clear whether as a result of what he said he considers that the present
provisions in Section 8 are satisfactory or not. If they are satisfactory provisions there is no reason either to alter or discuss them now. If they are not satisfactory provisions I cannot think the House of Commons is called upon to pass to the next business merely taking note of the fact that the provisions are not satisfactory, and that the Committee which sat for a long time has failed to propose a satisfactory settlement. The truth is that when one considers it—I do claim for myself—and most Members of the House will claim it—that we are trying to consider the matter impartially—both sides of the House—when you come to consider this matter impartially it is undoubtedly a very unsatisfactory provision that now exists; for this reason: that as the Minister of Labour has just pointed out, a man is not disqualified from unemployment benefit because he loses his employment by reason of a stoppage of work which is due to a trade dispute. He loses his unemployment benefit if he loses his job by reason of a stoppage of work due to a trade dispute at the factory at which he works.
I remember very well in 1911 it was the best that could be done. It is admittedly a compromise, and compromises do not always work out very satisfactorily. Let the House consider a case which actually happened and which undoubtedly produced much unmerited hardship. Take the case of the moulders' dispute, not so long ago, in the North of England. That was a dispute with skilled labour. The moulders, who were out of work because there was a trade dispute in connection with their employment, did not draw any unemployment benefit, and that was quite right. The whole scheme of insurance could not be made to work if a man was at liberty to bring the risk of unemployment upon himself, and then claim to be compensated. You never could have unemployment assurance which told a man that, first of all, he had to have a dispute with his employer, and then, when he was out of work, he could draw his unemployment benefit. That is quite right. To carry the thing a step further, the result of the skilled workmen, the moulders, being out of work owing to a trade dispute, was that a large number of unskilled workers, labourers, who worked in connection with, their work, Were thrown out
of work. They belonged to a different trade union. They cannot be accused of being part and parcel of the original complaint, and in so far as these unskilled labourers, who depended for employment upon the continued working of the skilled moulders, worked in the same works as the moulders, they got no benefit, because they were insured contributors who had lost their employment by reason of the stoppage of work due to a trade dispute at the factory at which they were employed.
In the same town, belonging to the very same enterprise, were other unskilled labourers belonging to the same trade union as the other labourers, who did draw unemployed benefit; these being also thrown out of work as a result of the moulders' strike. They did get unemployed benefit because they were not working at the same works, but another works in the same town. That is a very artificial distinction. I well remember that the Committee thought when the original Act of 1911 was framed it was the best distinction that could very well be laid down then. It is not, however, a very satisfactory distinction. A great many feel that it is not satisfactory besides those who are themselves trade union representatives. I notice that the hon. Member for South Croydon just now spoke of this proposed new Clause as if it were put forward by trade union representatives alone. If he will look at the Order Paper he will see it is put forward by other Members of the House as well. As a matter of fact, employers of labour—I do not wish to divide the Committee into parties in this respect— many employers have voiced their feelings that the present situation is not right quite apart from trade union representatives. There was a Member in the last House of Commons, Mr. Penry Williams, himself a considerable employer, who more than once called attention to the fact that this really was not a fair arrangement, because it gave unemployment benefit to one man owing to the circumstance that he had not been working at a particular works or factory where the trade dispute was going on, though he was thrown out of employment by it, and it refused unemployment benefit to another man who was exactly like himself and belonged to some trade union affected by exactly the same trade conditions, whilst another got benefit
because he did not happen to come within the prohibitory words of the Clause.

Sir A. SMITH: To what other Amendments does the right hon. and learned Gentleman refer?

Sir J. SIMON: I am referring, amongst other things, to the Amendment bearing the name of my hon. Friend the Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. Trevelyan Thomson), which is third on the Paper.

Sir A. SMITH: If that Amendment be pressed, can it be discussed with this one?

Sir J. SIMON: If you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, in your discretion rule that it can be discussed with this Amendment, I am content. I only want to point out that this really is not a question which is being raised by those who may feel that they have a special representative character, but is one which a large number of employers, as well as many of the general public interested in the subject, feel is the very subject for discussion and debate. That being so, it does not seem to mo that it is quite a fair or reasonable way of getting rid of the whole thing for the Minister, in a charming and alluring way to say, "There, now, I have made a most reasonable speech. I have explained to the Committee what the difficulty is, and I think everybody will agree we should get on to the next business." I should like to know, before the Debate, closes, either from the Minister of Labour or from the Under-Secretary, whom we are all very glad to see at the right hon. Gentleman's side and sharing his responsibility, whether the Government considers that the present arrangement is a satisfactory one. If they do not consider it a satisfactory arrangement, are they going to postpone their own proposals until some uncertain date in the future, when this informal Committee which the late Minister of Labour asked to act, is able to produce an agreed scheme? I cannot think that the duty of the Minister, or even of the House of Commons, is discharged by saying, "This was thrown at the head of a Committee nominated by the late Minister of Labour, and, therefore, what have we to do with it?" We have this fact, that the thing does not work. If it does not work, we have to see whether or not some proposal, on the lines of one or other of these Amendments, is not really a better provision than that which exists at present.
I notice in the proceedings on the Standing Committee—I have read them, though I was not a member of that Committee—it was more than once asserted, by those who know, that it is not really primarily a question of finance. If it could be said that the Amendment now proposed were going to strike at the root of the financial solvency of the Fund, that would be a very serious practical objection; but it has been more than once asserted that that is not the real difficulty. If the difficulty merely be that it is not very easy to draw a line accurately and clearly, other than the line now in the Bill, then I would invite the Government to devote their energies to seeing whether, on reflection, they cannot produce a more equitable arrangement. Nobody wants— at any rate, no honest person ought to want—the Unemployment Fund to be made available simply for the purpose of financing strikes and lock-outs. That is not the intention of the Fund, and it would be a gross misuse of the Fund. I have not the slightest sympathy with anybody who tries, by a side wind, to get a trade dispute financed out of the Fund. Since 1911—hon. Members opposite will be able to correct me, if necessary, from the employers' side-—the development of labour organisations, on the one hand, and of the employers' organisations, on the other, has tended to make this Clause 8 work more and more hardly as against what I may call the innocent victim. That is to say, you very often have involved in a trade dispute, theoretically, if not in actual fact, immense masses of people who, at any rate, in an indirect sense, may be said to have something to do with a dispute. It is the result of forming great federations, on the one side or the other.
I am all for sticking to the rule that a man ought not to be able to help himself out of this Fund, to which the employers contribute, as well as the workmen and the State, if he can be, in any practical sense, regarded as financing his own trade dispute. He relies on other means of support—support from his trade union, from public opinion, and in other ways. He ought not to look to, and I do not think he wishes to look to, an Unemployment Insurance Fund; but the thing has so worked out, since unemployment insurance was first set up, that you get wider and wider areas excluded from benefit by a literal application of this provision
Within my own experience it has happened that the Referee has had to decide that a case did not come within the range of unemployment insurance payments, though many of those cases would appear to an impartial onlooker to be a very long way from the heart and kernel of the dispute. I ask the Government if they have not got rather more satisfaction to give to the Committee, because I am convinced that it is not the desire of any portion of the Committee that we should misuse this Fund. It is exceedingly important that we should not pass from this subject, admitting that the situation now existing is a pure anomaly, one man being taken and another man being left, and that there is no real rhyme or reason in the distinction, but that we should try to get the matter placed on more practical and logical lines.

Mr. SHORT: I can assure my right hon. and learned Friend who has just spoken that, so far as we on this side are concerned, we do not desire to take advantage of the provisions of the Unemployment Insurance Act for the purposes of financing strikes or trade disputes. We have never indicated, either by way of amendment or by speech, that we regard the financing of such disputes as one of the objects provided for by the provisions of the various Insurance Acts. We have had a very cold and unsympathetic speech from the Minister of Labour on this matter. The right hon. Gentleman displayed political sagacity in defending himself, because he is hopeful that some Committee will find suitable words to be incorporated in some Bill in the future. Such a policy will meet with little approval on this side of the House. The Minister is hopeful that this Committee may be successful. We are told, however, by the hon. Member for South Croydon (Sir A. Smith), that a decision of the House has already been given in Committee; and that, if this Amendment be now pressed to a division—as it will be—there will be greater uncertainty as to what will be the outcome of the work of this particular Committee. I gather from his statement that he seemed to think there was no real volume of opinion in the House of Commons in favour of some drastic alteration in the direction indicated fin the Amendment.

Sir A. SMITH: I do not wish to be misunderstood. Everyone admits the difficulty, and everyone equally admits the difficulty in providing a remedy.

Mr. SHORT: I quite agree that there is some difficulty, but I believe it has been a manufactured one. Had there been an honest desire on the part of the Minister to find suitable words, after consultation, it might well be, with the Law Officers of the Crown, we should have found a reasonable solution. I would remind my hon. Friend that when this matter was before the Committee, during the prosecution of the previous Bill, the volume of opinion was so great that we should have secured the adoption of words which would have met this difficulty, but for the fact that the support which we gathered in Committee from the Government Benches was bought off—if I may use the word without offence—by the right hon. Member for North-West Camberwell (Dr. Macnamara) offering to set up a Committee. I and my hon. Friends were very diffident indeed in accepting the proposition at all, because of the opinion which was so manifested in the Committee. Finally, however, we did so, and here we are again. The difficulty still remains. We have the uncertainty expressed by my right hon. and learned Friend on one hand, and the hope of the Minister on the other. We have the whole issue confused by the circular of the Minister, of which the employers are now taking advantage, as was admitted by the hon. Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Hayday) and the hon. Member for South Croydon.

Sir A. SMITH: I really must protest against the imputation that we have deliberately sheltered ourselves from responsibility by taking advantage of the circular which was issued. Nothing that I have said or published justifies that statement.

Mr. SHORT: If I have in any way misinterpreted the hon. Gentleman's words, and put upon them a construction which I am not entitled to do, I withdraw, but I certainly was of that opinion. I am happy to find that in the course of the Debate the hon. Member is now ready and prepared to continue his activities in the direction of finding some suitable words. He made some reference to disputes, and notably to one which involved 47 Unions,
and which arose from the question of managerial functions, but I do not propose to go into that. The hon. Gentleman assured the House that the facts were not as my hon. Friend the Member for West Nottingham stated, and that the case was not a good one to put forward. I will give him a case that is a good one. In my constituency, in the nut and bolt trade, employers in the town of Darlaston sought a reduction of 13s. a week from the girls employed in the industry. It was some considerable time ago, before the passing of the Act, to which I have already referred. The girls objected to a reduction, and came out on strike. I am not certain whether they were not locked out, because a notice was, I believe, put up on the gates to the effect that on a certain date this reduction would be put into operation, and no real and due notice was given. I do not remember whether it was a lock-out or a strike, but a dispute occurred, and the girls came out. In the course of the dispute, the firms closed the entire factories, and everybody employed in the factories were displaced, and thrown out on the streets. Here, we had the spectacle of single girls fighting against a reduction of 13s. a week, and of married men, with families, displaced because of a dispute in which they had no interest, by which they had nothing to gain—no increase of wages, no change in their conditions—and their right to benefit refused because it was said that they were involved in a trade dispute.
6.0 P.M.
In my judgment, this is purely a matter of justice. We do not contend that these workers come within the provisions of these Acts, or are entitled to payment if they are directly involved in a trade dispute, but they pay their contributions, and, if they are unemployed through no fault of their own, if their unemployment arises legitimately out of the exigencies of the trade in which they are engaged, then I say they are entitled to benefit, and some immediate change in the law ought to be made. I have never been satisfied with the appointment of this Committee. I have seen the opposition manifested in various quarters of the House, quarters which are indicative of the active mentality of the employers' organisations; but I recall, in the long struggle that has been waged on this question, at least one bright incident, and that was
the action of the right hon. Gentleman who was then known as Sir Edward Carson, and who fought strenuously, and, indeed, bitterly, for some amendment such as we are now seeking. His action arose largely out of the moulders' dispute or of some great disputes in the shipyards of Belfast. He saw at once the justice of the claim; he saw that these men, with their families, were the innocent victims of something over which they had no control and with which they had nothing to do, and, with his great ability and learning, he strove, with many of us, to secure some suitable amendment.
I am of the opinion that the responsibility is upon the House of Commons. We are not entitled, as public men representing our constituents, representing the people of our country, to shoulder this responsibility upon the employers on the one hand and the workers on the other. It has been demonstrated time after time that a grave injustice exists, and has existed since the interpretation was placed upon the law by the Umpire. A volume of opinion has manifested itself in Committee and in this House in favour of some adjustment, and I am of the opinion that the law officers of the Crown ought to have been consulted, as we pleaded that they should be in days gone by, and that some form of words ought to have been formulated and included in the provisions of this Bill which would redress the wrong, remove the injustice, and prevent innocent victims from suffering in the future as they have in the past.

Mr. GEORGE BALFOUR: I assume that in this House, in our capacity as lawmakers, we should have regard chiefly to the effect of the laws which we make upon the general well-being of the people as a whole. I confess that it leaves me cold when I hear constant arguments in this House, on subjects of this kind, as to agreements made between committees of workers and committees of employers, or between federations of workers and federations of employers, because, while it is true that those agreements may be sound and good, it does not necessarily follow that they are consistent with, or coincide with, the best interests of the people of this country as a whole It may mean, and, in fact, in my own experience it often does mean, that agreements so arrived at, while eminently
suiting the interests both of the employers and of the employés, often strike right across the interests and well-being of the people as a whole. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) defended this proposed new Clause on the plea that there are many hardships under the law as it stands at present. He quoted one case that is very well known to us all, the case of the moulders who, in the course of their strike, brought a great amount of hardship on engineers in the shops where those moulders were also employed, while engineers, who were employed in shops where no moulding was done, had available to them the unemployment benefit I agree that that is the case, but I submit that, in an endeavour to remove a particular hardship, we must see that we do not inflict upon the people of the country as a whole a still greater hardship and difficulty, and it is from that point of view that I am making these few remarks.
I think the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley cannot have listened to the speech of the hon. Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Hayday). Had he done so, I think he would have found good reason for opposing, and not for supporting, this proposed new Clause. The hon. Member for West Nottingham gave several cases. One was in connection with a brickworks where, if six men were out on strike a large number of others would follow in their wake, and would not be eligible for benefit. Towards the end of his speech he came back to the same point, and instanced again that if, in a large number of industries throughout the country, six men were out on strike, and hundreds upon hundreds followed at their heels, they would not be eligible for benefit because their unemployment was due to the strike. Has the hon. Member thought how easy it would be to bring out a very large number of people by selecting the necessary sixes all over the country? [HON. MEMBERS: "No! Nonsense!"] I quite understand that hon. Members repudiate that suggestion, and I should myself repudiate it were I in their place, but I am dealing with the facts as they stand. Could there be a greater disaster than that we should put into an Act of Parliament words that would allow that
to be done? I am sure that hon. Gentlemen opposite would not take advantage of it, but it could be taken advantage of, and then where would unemployment insurance be as a national scheme? I submit that to put words like this into the Measure would be to do a grave injustice, and not only a grave injustice to the small number of men interested in the industries connected with a dispute, but also to all people who come within the scope of unemployment insurance. I sincerely hope that the right hon. Gentleman will stand firm, and not give way on this proposal.

Mr. GRIFFITHS: The argument of the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down was very weak indeed, and I think, from his experience of trade union leaders and trade unions in this country, he will agree with me that the last thing to which we think of resorting is a strike. From his remarks, however, one would imagine that we were always looking out for trouble in order to bring men out on strike. At any rate, that is what I gathered from the hon. Member's remarks.

Mr. BALFOUR: May I point out that I was very careful to say that if hon. Gentlemen who are now opposite had to deal with the situation it probably would be all right, but we are putting something on the Statute Book for all time. The hon. Gentleman can speak for himself, but not for his successors.

Mr. GRIFFITHS: Anyhow, the argument is based on an assumption, and I do not know what the hon. Member means. I want to plead with the Minister of Labour. He has asked us on this side of the House not to press this to a Division, but I can assure him that this injustice has been going on for so long that the only way in which we can show our protest against the action of the Government, and also, if I may say so, against the action of the Committee, of which the hon. Member for South Croydon (Sir A. Smith) was a Member, is by going into the Division Lobby, and I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that we shall press this Clause to a Division. The matter has been going on since 1911. I have heard several speeches from the other side of the House appealing in a nice, kind way, as the Minister has been doing to-day, but
nothing whatever has been done in the long run. Appeals have simply been made to those on this side to allow matters to go on, and leave the question to settle itself. I am sorry that the hon. Member for South Croydon has gone out of the House, because I am sure he understands the trade union movement quite as well as any trade union leader in this House. He said that it was very difficult to define a trade dispute, but I do not believe it is at all difficult, because the rules of the trade unions are quite clear and distinct so far as trade disputes are concerned. In my own society, for instance, we have three rules. First of all, we have the strike benefit; then we have a benefit for lock-out; and then we have unemployment benefit, when men are thrown out of work through no fault of their own. The strike benefit, as far as I am concerned—and I was a trade union leader in South Wales for over 20 years—the strike clause has never been put into operation, because we had a Conciliation Board, which has now developed into a Whitley Council, which prevented any strike from taking place. We had, however, several stoppages there, through men kicking over the traces, through sections of other societies putting forward claims for advances in wages which were not granted by the employers, and our members were thrown out of employment.
This is where the Act places a hardship upon these men. We go to the employers when we enter into our annual agreement, and we practically fix up the rates of wages and conditions for the whole of the men—some 20,000—employed in the trade. A section of men may not accept the arrangement entered into at the Conciliation Board. To give an illustration, you may have three engine-drivers driving an engine in a steel works—where some 800 or 1,000 men are employed. If those three engine-drivers refuse to accept the arrangement entered into by their own representatives and the employers in the Conciliation Board, they can stop the

whole of that works, and, while 800 men are thrown out of employment, not one of them is entitled to unemployment benefit, because there is a dispute in that particular works. That has happened over and over again. Even though the employers in the Conciliation Board or Whitley Council are in agreement with the trade union leaders, and a certificate is given that those 800 men are not implicated in the dispute, still the Act would prevent them from getting unemployment benefit. The thing has gone on too long. You have appealed to us not to force the matter to a Division. We want to appeal to you to have the matter remedied as quickly as possible. We have put our case before you. The hon. Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) has put it theoretically, and we have put it from the practical standpoint, and we have given illustrations out of number to show how hard this works upon these men who have to suffer through a trade dispute. You have no argument on that side of the House to show us why we should leave the matter to stand. We have simply the appeal of the Minister of Labour. Therefore, we ask you to accept this Clause and have the matter redressed as quickly as possible.

Sir M. BARLOW: What, I am sure, animates us all is a desire that the applicants should get their benefit promptly on April 12th, the day the Bill comes into operation. We have a long way to go. There are four pages of Amendments and unless the Bill can leave us to-night and go to another place forthwith—I am serious in this—there may really be some difficulty, as Easter intervenes, in getting the Bill into operation by the fixed date. Therefore, if a Division has to be taken, which I should regret, but which I can understand, I appeal to hon. Members to let us have it now and go on to the next Clause.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The House divided: Ayes, 142; Noes, 232.

Division No. 47.]
AYES.
[6.18 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Batey, Joseph
Brotherton, J.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Buchanan, G.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Berkeley, Captain Reginald
Buckle, J.


Ammon, Charles George
Bonwick, A.
Butler, J. R. M. (Cambridge Univ.)


Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry
Bowdler, W. A.
Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)


Attlee, C. R.
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Cairns, John


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Briant, Frank
Chapple, W. A.


Barnes, A.
Broad, F. A.
Charleton, H. C.


Clarke, Sir E. C.
Jowett, F. W. (Bradford, East)
Salter, Dr. A.


Clynes, Rt. Hon, John R.
Kenworthy, Lieut. Commander J. M.
Scrymgeour, E.


Darbishire, C. W.
Kenyon, Barnet
Sexton, James


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Kirkwood, D.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lansbury, George
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Duffy, T. Gavan
Lawson, John James
Simpson, J. Hope


Duncan, C.
Leach, W.
Smith, T. (Pontefract)


Ede, James Chuter
Lee, F.
Snowden, Philip


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Lees-Smith, H. B. (Keighley)
Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)


Falconer, J.
Linfield, F. C.
Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.


Foot, Isaac
Lowth, T.
Stephen, Campbell


George, Major G. L. (Pembroke)
Lunn, William
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Gilbert, James Daniel
MacDonald, J. R. (Aberavon)
Strauss, Edward Anthony


Gosling, Harry
M'Entee, V. L.
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)


Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)
McLaren, Andrew
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Gray, Frank (Oxford)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Thornton, M.


Greenall, T,
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Trevelyan, C. P.


Greenwood, A, (Nelson and Colne)
March, S.
Turner, Ben


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Marshall, Sir Arthur H.
Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)


Groves, T.
Martin, F. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, E.)
Warne, G. H.


Grundy, T. W.
Maxton, James
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Middleton, G.
Webb, Sidney


Harbord, Arthur
Millar, J. D.
Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.


Hardle, George D.
Morel, E. D.
Weir, L. M.


Harris, Percy A.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Westwood, J.


Hastings, Patrick
Muir, John W.
Wheatley, J.


Hay, Captain J. P. (Cathcart)
Nichol, Robert
White, H. G. (Birkenhead, E.)


Hayday, Arthur
O'Grady, Captain James
Whiteley, W.


Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Oliver, George Harold
Wignall, James


Herriotts, J.
Paling, W.
Williams, David (Swansea, E.)


Hillary, A. E.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wlgan)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Hinds, John
Phillips, Vivian
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Hirst, G. H.
Ponsonby, Arthur
Wintringham, Margaret


Hodge, Rt. Hon. John
Potts, John S.
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Irving, Dan
Pringle, W. M. R.
Wright, W.


John, William (Rhondda, West)
Richards, R.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)



Jones, Henry Haydn (Merloneth)
Roberts, C. H. (Derby)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Mr. T. Griffiths and Mr. Frederick Hall


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Royce, William Stapleton



Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Saklatvala, S.



NOES.


Adkins, Sir William Ryland Dent
Burney, Com. (Middx., Uxbridge)
Foreman, Sir Henry


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Butcher, Sir John George
Forestler-Walker, L.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton, East)
Cadogan, Major Edward
Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot


Alexander, Col. M. (Southwark)
Camplon, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.
Frece, Sir Walter de


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Cautley, Henry Strother
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.


Apsley, Lord
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Furness, G. J.


Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Galbraith, J. F. W.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Wilfrid W.
Chapman, Sir S.
Ganzoni, Sir John


Astor, J. J. (Kent, Dover)
Churchman, Sir Arthur
Gardiner, James


Astor, Viscountess
Clarry, Reginald George
Gates, Percy


Baird, Rt. Hon. Sir John Lawrence
Clayton, G. C.
Gaunt, Rear-Admiral Sir Guy R.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Coates, Lt.-Col. Norman
Goff, Sir R. Park


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Gray, Harold (Cambridge)


Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.
Collie, Sir John
Greaves-Lord, Walter


Banks, Mitchell
Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)


Barlow, Rt. Hon. Sir Montague
Conway, Sir W. Martin
Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.


Barnston, Major Harry
Craig, Capt. C. C. (Antrim, South)
Hall, Rr-Adml Sir W. (Liv'p'l,W.D'by)


Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Crook, C. W. (East Ham, North)
Halstead, Major D.


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Crooke, J. S. (Deritend)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Bennett, Sir T. J. (Sevenoaks)
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)


Berry, Sir George
Dalziel, Sir D. (Lambeth, Brixton)
Harrison, F. C.


Betterton, Henry B.
Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead)
Harvey, Major S. E.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Hawke, John Anthony


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S)
Hay, Major T. W. (Norfolk, South)


Blundell, F. N.
Dawson, Sir Philip
Henderson, Sir T. (Roxburgh)


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Doyle, N. Grattan
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Du Pre, Colonel William Baring
Herbert, Col. Hon. A. (Yeovil)


Brass, Captain W.
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Herbert, S. (Scarborough)


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Hewett, Sir J. P.


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Ellis, R. G.
Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank


Briggs, Harold
England, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Hiley, Sir Ernest


Brittain, Sir Harry
Erskine, James Malcolm Montelth
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.


Brown, Major D. C. (Hexham)
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Newbury)
Erskine-Bolst, Captain C.
Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy


Bruton, Sir James
Evans, Capt. H. Arthur (Leicester, E.)
Hood, Sir Joseph


Buckingham, Sir H.
Falcon, Captain Michael
Hopkins, John W. W.


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mosilty)


Bull, Ht. Hon. Sir William James
Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.
Howard, Capt. D. (Cumberland, N.)


Burn, Colonel Sir Charles Rosdew
Flanagan, W. H.
Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Col. C. K.




Hudson, Capt. A.
Newson, Sir Percy Wilson
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Hughes, Collingwood
Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)
Shepperson, E. W.


Hurd, Percy A.
Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)
Shipwright, Captain D.


Hutchison, G. A. C. (Midlothian, N.)
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Sinclair, Sir A.


Hutchison, Sir R. (Kirkcaldy)
Paget, T. G.
Singleton, J. E.


Hutchison, W. (Kelvingrove)
Parker, Owen (Kettering)
Skelton, A. N.


Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Pease, William Edwin
Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)


Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.
Penny, Frederick George
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Stewart, Gershom (Wirral)


Jarrett, G. W. S.
Perring, William George
Stott, Lt.-Col. W. H.


Jodrell, Sir Neville Paul
Peto, Basil E.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton.


Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Philipson, H. H.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Joynson-Hicks, Sir William
Pielou, D. P.
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Kennedy, Captain M. S. Nigel
Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


King, Captain Henry Douglas
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Colonel G. R.
Price, E. G.
Turton, Edmund Russborough


Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C.)
Privett, F. J.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Lloyd Greame, Rt. Hon. Sir P.
Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. John Fredk. Peel
Wallace, Captain E.


Lorden, John William
Rawson, Lieut.-Com. A. C.
Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)


Lorimer, H. D.
Reid, D. D. (County Down)
Watson, Capt. J. (Stockton-on-Tees)


Lowe, Sir Francis William
Remnant, Sir James
Wells, S. R.


Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)
Rentoul, G. S.
Weston, Colonel John Wakefield


Lumley, L. R.
Reynolds, W. G. W.
White, Lt.-Col. G. D. (Southport)


McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)
Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend)
Whitla, Sir William


Manville, Edward
Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)
Winterton Earl


Margesson, H. D. R.
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)
Wise, Frederick


Mason, Lieut.-Col C. K.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. Sir S. (Ecclesall)
Wolmer, Viscount


Mercer Colonel H.
Robertson, J. D. (Islington, W.)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)


Milne, J. S. Wardlaw
Rogerson, Capt. J. E.
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


Mitchell, W. F. (Saffron Walden)
Roundell, Colonel R. F.
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Molloy, Major L. G. S.
Ruggles-Brise, Major E.
Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward


Molson, Major John Elsdale
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Yerburgh, R. D. T.


Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.
Russell, William (Bolton)
Young, Rt. Hon. E. H. (Norwich)


Moore Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Russell-Wells, Sir Sydney



Moreing, Captain Algernon H.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Morrison, Hugh (Wilts, Salisbury)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Colonel Leslie Wilson and Colonel Gibbs.


Nesbitt, Robert C.
Sandon, Lord



Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

NEW CLAUSE—(Qualifying period for payment of benefit.)
Sub-section (3) of Section three of the Unemployment Insurance (No. 2) Act, 1921, is hereby repealed, and paragraph (1) of the Second Schedule to the principal Act (which provides that unemployment benefit shall be payable in respect of each week of any continuous period of unemployment after the first three days of unemployment) shall have effect as if re-enacted in this Act."—[Mr. Sexton.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. SEXTON: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
Under the six days' qualifying period in the existing law a casual labourer may be permanently disqualified from receiving benefit although he has to pay contributions. We protested against the extension of the three days to six, and in Committee we endeavoured to get some redress on that point. The right hon. Gentleman has made a concession which has gone a considerable way, but even under that the casual labourer will be disqualified if ho is employed only for two and a half days in a week. I should like to make a bargain with the right hon. Gentleman, and I hope he will give it serious consideration. If, later on, he agrees to accept the six half-days as the equivalent of three days I will not pro-
ceed with this Clause. If, again, he will agree to give us the concession contained in another Amendment, that anything over two days will count as three days— because there are hundreds of cases every week where a man does not get more than two and a half days, so that he will be disqualified under the present three days' qualifying period—I will not press this Clause. I ask him to accept one or the other, so that a man will not have a Departmental sword of Damocles hanging over his head all the time.

Mr. HARDIE: I beg to second the Motion.
I desire to impress upon the Minister of Labour what is meant by the term "casual worker." The whole of this Clause deals entirely with the case of men who are becoming more numerous every day; a case which is difficult to understand except by those who come into contact with the casual labourer. My own experience in dealing with men from the casual point of view has always borne in upon me this fact, that the present system is heartless, because it treats the casual man as though he were something apart from ordinary workmen in the process of finding work. Why should there be a harsh distinction made
between the man who is always fortunate enough to be in work, as compared with the casual labourer? There is no reason that I know of, and I speak from experience of trades in which I have been in charge of certain work where casual labour was part and parcel of the system. Why should there be distinction made against the man who has to depend on his gyrations from one place to another in the hope of getting some casual work? Surely, it is much harder for the casual man who is always on his feet going from gate to gate and meeting with refusals and disappointment, and then when he is fortunate enough to get a day's work or half a day's work to find that not only he but his would-be employer are harassed under what I call a form of villainous registration.
The hon. Member for St. Helens (Mr. Sexton) did not speak of the dockers, but there is an illustration of the hardship experienced. Because of the conditions of shipping a man may be walking from gate to gate and not finding work, and then at some given moment a ship arrives to be unloaded. The rules which characterise the disorganised system of shipping in this country mean that while the men are standing waiting they are not to be counted as men in the machinery, but when the ship arrives they are expected to work right on, shift after shift, until the work of unloading the ship is completed. Members of this House cannot claim that they are desirous of dealing humanely with their brothers if they seek to impose this hardship upon the casual man, who, already, has enough difficulty imposed upon him by the fact that he cannot get constant employment. Why should it be necessary under a humane system, as this system is claimed to be, to have any days at all put against these men having the right to get the unemployment benefit for which he is paying all the time? We ought to think of the unfortunate position of the casual man going day after day to his home, where his wife and children are expectantly waiting, and having to tell them: "No luck to-day; perhaps luck to-morrow." That is not a system of society that is going to instil confidence and satisfaction into our class. Justice can only come from a system of society in which service shall be secured in regard to that which means life for all concerned.

Sir M. BARLOW: The hon. Member for St. Helens (Mr. Sexton) has endeavoured to beguile me with a series of propositions. There is the highest authority for saying that in vain is the snare set in the sight of a bird. I feel a little difficulty about responding as I would like to respond to the offer made to me by my hon. Friend, because I know his interest in the subject, and I know his knowledge. I do not think that I could make this a matter of bargain, and I am sorry to say so. The concessions which I am asked to give by way of alternative are not in pari materia. They are not on the same footing as the proposal before us. The suggestion is that the waiting period shall be not a week but three days. The hon. Member suggested that in making this proposal he was reverting to the original rule. That is not quite the case. The original rule under the Act of 1911 was a week. Later on, in the 1920 Act, it became three days. In 1921 we reverted to the week. Therefore the period during which the three days' principle has been in practice has been a short period in the history of our insurance legislation. Moreover, in building up our unemployment insurance system we have founded ourselves, quite rightly, to a very large extent on trade union practice. It is not unfamiliar in trade union practice that the waiting period should be a week. The practice varies, I know, but a waiting period of a week is not unfamiliar. While I do not want to make the question of cost the crucial issue, still as guardian of the fund it is an issue that must be present to my mind. It is difficult to estimate what the extension would cost, but undoubtedly it would cost a very large sum of money, probably between £1,500,000 and £3,000,000. Under these circumstances I very much regret that I cannot see my way to accept this new Clause.

Mr. HARRIS: I am sorry that we have had such an unsympathetic reply. The Minister of Labour is not merely in charge of the Bill but he has to approach the whole unemployment problem. What he has to try to bring about is that men should get back to work. Insurance is only a makeshift. It is not a satisfactory solution of unemployment. What we have to do is to try to get the men back to be producers as rapidly as possible. We want them to become economic units and to give them every encouragement to seek
employment, so that they may become wage earners, and not a charge on the insurance funds. The right hon. Gentleman suggested that this proposal will cost a large sum of money. It may cost a large sum immediately, but I am not sure he is right if he takes a long view, because in the long run it will relieve the Insurance Fund by getting men into regular employment and making them wage earners. London is peculiar for many reasons. One of the tragedies of London is the large number of casual labourers, among whom are many men who before the War were earning a good living. They were useful members of society, and were able to bring enough into their home to keep their homes together and not to become a charge on the Poor Law or a burden on the community in any other way.
The normal way in which irregular employment operated was that men would sometimes get a whole week's work, sometimes a couple of days, sometimes a day's work, and on the whole they might make quite a decent income throughout the whole year; but now we are in abnormal times of trade depression. All branches of industry are suffering and the casual labourers are suffering perhaps more than any other class. I am constantly hearing, and the Minister of Labour must have heard, that there is a feeling amongst the men who take odd jobs that if they go to a temporary job they may be losing advantages under this insurance scheme. That is why I urge the right hon. Gentleman that this new Clause should not be received in such an unfriendly way. There are a great number of small employers in London who have received a very bad shock because of the present trade depression. They are not men with large capital or large resources; they have to work from day to day, and are not in a position to guarantee employment for a man for a long period. In the East End these employers are quite willing to take a man on for a day, but the casual labourer says: "If I come and work on those terms, with no guaranteed period, all I shall be doing will be to disqualify myself for unemployment benefit because of the Regulations under the Insurance Act." That is the very thing that we want to avoid. We want industry to get going as quickly as possible. We want to encourage the small employers to get their factories going again, and to take on labour which is
anxious and willing to volunteer for service. The Regulations as they exist, far from helping to keep the charge on the insurance funds small, are, by their very conditions, making the calls on the fund large.
It is unfortunate that there should be this piecemeal legislation; this tinkering with the Unemployment Insurance question. We ought to make the period three days where necessary, as it was previously. We are going backward instead of forward in this Bill in this respect. The casual labourers need our sympathy more than anybody else, because they are not well organised. They have to stand on their own feet, and it is a constant struggle with them to find work. For these reasons I shall support the proposed new Clause, because it is an attempt to deal with this very difficult problem and to give a fair chance to these men who are struggling to get back again on the labour market.

Mr. LANSBURY: The Minister has stated that he is acting on trade union custom in this matter. But that is not so. No union that took on casual labour had any employment pay at all. Everyone knew that no trade union could get the funds to be able to pay out-of-work benefit to men unemployed in these conditions. This is another instance of the Government shoving on to local authorities a burden which they ought not to bear. We, in Poplar, exist on casual labour; we have from 25 per cent. to 30 per cent. of our wage-earners employed casually. The matter has been discussed over and over again. We have had Royal Commissions on the question and everybody admits the gravity of the situation, and it is monstrous that in this way you should seek to add to the terrible burden of the unhappy ratepayer. It is too bad that the Government does not recognise that neither any district nor any individual is responsible for these conditions. These conditions have grown up. Everybody admits that they are bad, but no Government will rectify them. In those circumstances the Minister has been very hard to-night in calmly disposing of the matter in a two- or three-minutes' speech.
This will mean very many pennies on the rates of Poplar which it should not be called on to find. We cannot help the position in which we find ourselves. A
small employer comes up and gives a man half a day's work, the man says, "I cannot go on the unemployed fund if I take this job, and is thus induced to refuse." In a week's time he may get another half-day's work. We think he ought to take it, for we do not think it is a good thing that people should get into the habit of dodging work merely to get a week's pay. We welcome him going to work, but if he takes it he must go on to Poor Law relief, not grudgingly, so far as we are concerned, but grudgingly when we remember it is the finance of this House we are relieving, we feel this is a grave injustice, not only to the man, hut to the local ratepayers, and I hope my hon. Friends will go to a Division on every Amendment embodying this principle until the Government are prepared to accept a scheme for securing the de casualisation of labour at docks and other places. Until they do that we ought to do our best to make them pay for it.

Mr. PRINGLE: The House ought not to be satisfied with the perfunctory way in which the right hon. Gentleman has dealt with the Amendment. Though the matter has often been discussed before, and the Government are merely adhering to their former attitude, yet during the intervening period there has been the

experience of the unfortunate working of the existing provision. My hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris) have special experience of the effect of this system in areas where there is a large volume of casual labour, and experience has shown not only there, but also in the other places, that this provision has prevented men from taking work. Owing to the qualifying period, short jobs have been refused, and, quite naturally, if you have in the Act a provision which is keeping men out of employment. That is a provision which should be modified so as to avert that evil consequence. If the man does take work, he is out of benefit and a charge upon the rates. So the alternative is, that it is bad for him if he takes work, and he is a charge upon the rates, and if he is not, you are increasing the amount of unemployment and encouraging the man to be idle. The conditions which arise out of the present provision are indefensible, and I hope, therefore, that hon. Members above the Gangway will press the matter to a Division.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The House divided: Ayes, 161; Noes, 220.

Division No. 48.]
AYES.
[6.52 p.m.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
England, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Evans, Capt. H. Arthur (Leicester, E.)
John, William (Rhondda, West)


Ammon, Charles George
Falconer, J.
Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)


Attlee, C. R.
Foot, Isaac
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
George, Major G. L. (Pembroke)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)


Barnes, A.
Gilbert, James Daniel
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar (Banff)
Gosling, Harry
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)


Batey, Joseph
Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Gray, Frank (Oxford)
Jowett, F. W. (Bradford, East)


Berkeley, Captain Reginald
Greenall, T.
Jowitt, W. A. (The Hartlepools)


Bonwick, A.
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.


Bowdler, W. A.
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Kenyon, Barnet


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Kirkwood, D.


Briant, Frank
Groves, T.
Lansbury, George


Broad, F. A.
Grundy, T. W.
Lawson, John James


Brotherton, J.
Guthrie, Thomas Maule
Leach, W.


Buchanan, G.
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Lee, F.


Buckle, J.
Harbord, Arthur
Lees-Smith, H. B. (Keiyhley)


Butler, J. R. M. (Cambridge Univ.)
Hardie, George D.
Lewis, Thomas A.


Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Linfield, F. C.


Cairns, John
Harris, Percy A.
Lowth, T.


Chapple, W. A.
Hastings, Patrick
McCurdy, Rt. Hon. Charles A.


Charleton, H. C.
Hay, Captain J. P. (Cathcart)
MacDonald, J, R. (Aberavon)


Clarke, Sir E. C.
Hayday, Arthur
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Hayes, John Henry (Edge Hill)
M'Entee, V. L.


Collie, Sir John
Henderson, Sir T. (Roxburgh)
McLaren, Andrew


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Mactean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)


Darbishire, C. W.
Herriotts, J.
March, S.


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Hillary, A. E.
Marks, Sir George Croydon


Davies, J. C. (Denbigh, Denbigh)
Hinds, John
Marshall, Sir Arthur H.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughlon)
Hirst, G. H.
Martin, F. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, E.)


Duffy, T. Gavan
Hodge, Rt. Hon. John
Maxton, James


Duncan, C.
Hodge, Lieut.-Col. J. P. (Preston)
Middleton, G.


Ede, James Chuter
Hutchison, Sir R. (Kirkcaldy)
Millar, J. D.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Irving, Dan
Morel, E. D.


Morris, Harold
Scrymgeour, E.
Webb, Sidney


Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Sexton, James
Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.


Muir, John W.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Weir, L. M.


Murray, John (Leeds, West)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Westwood, J.


Nichol, Robert
Sinclair, Sir A.
Wheatley, J.


O'Grady, Captain James
Smith, T. (Pontetract)
White, H. G. (Birkenhead, E.)


Oliver, George Harold
Snowden, Philip
Whiteley, W.


Paling, W.
Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)
Wignall, James


Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Stephenson, Lieut. Colonel H. K.
Williams, David (Swansea, E.)


Phillipps, Vivian
Stephen, Campbell
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Ponsonby, Arthur
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Potts, John S.
Strauss, Edward Anthony
Wintringham, Margaret


Price, E. G.
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)
Wood, Major M, M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Pringle, W. M. R.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)
Wright, W,


Richards, R.
Thornton, M.
Young, Rt. Hon. E. H. (Norwich)


Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Trevelyan, C. P.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Riley, Ben
Turner, Ben



Royce, William Stapleton
Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Saklatvala, S.
Warne, G. H.
Mr. Frederick Hall and Mr. Lunn.


Salter, Dr. A.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)



NOES.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton, East)
Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Jarrett, G. W. S.


Apsley, Lord
Davison, Sir w. H. (Kensington, S.)
Jodrell, Sir Neville Paul


Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin
Dawson, Sir Philip
Joynson-Hicks, Sir William


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Wilfrid W.
Doyle, N. Grattan
Kennedy, Captain M. S. Nigel


Astor, J.J. (Kent, Dover)
Du Pre, Colonel William Baring
King, Captain Henry Douglas


Astor, Viscountess
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement


Baird, Rt. Hon. Sir John Lawrence
Elliot, Capt. Waiter E. (Lanark)
Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Colonel G. R.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon, Stanley
Ellis, R. G.
Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C.)


Baltour, George (Hampstead)
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)


Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Lloyd-Greame, Rt. Hon. Sir P.


Banks, Mitchell
Erskine-Bolst, Captain C.
Lorden, John William


Barlow, Rt. Hon. Sir Montague
Falcon, Captain Michael
Lorimer, H. D.


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray
Lowe, Sir Francis William


Barnston, Major Harry
Flanagan, W. H.
Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)


Becker, Harry
Foreman, Sir Henry
Lumley, L. R.


Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Forestier-Walker, L.
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W,
Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot
McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)


Berry, Sir George
Frece, Sir Walter de
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.


Betterton, Henry B.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Manville, Edward


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Furness, G. J.
Margesson, H. D. H.


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Mason, Lieut.-Col. C. K.


Blundell, F. N.
Ganzonl, Sir John
Mercer, Colonel H.


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Gates, Percy
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Gaunt, Rear-Admiral Sir Guy R.
Mitchell, W. F. (Saffron Walden)


Brass, Captain W.
Goff, Sir R. Park
Molloy, Major L. G. S.


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Greaves-Lord, Walter
Molson, Major John Elsdale


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.


Briggs, Harold
Cretton, Colonel John
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.


Brittain, Sir Harry
Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.
Morrison, Hugh (Wilts, Salisbury)


Brown, Major D. C. (Hexham)
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Nesbitt, Robert C.


Brown, Brig-Gen. Clifton (Newbury)
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)


Bruton, Sir James
Hall, Rr-Adml Sir W. (LIv'p'l,W.D'by)
Newson, Sir Percy Wilson


Buckingham, Sir H.
Halstead, Major D.
Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Harrison, F. C.
Paget, T. G.


Burn, Colonel Sir Charles Rosdew
Harvey, Major S. E.
Pease, William Edwin


Burney, Com. (Middx., Uxbridge)
Hawke, John Anthony
Penny, Frederick George


Butcher, Sir John George
Hay, Major T. W. (Norfolk, South)
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Cadogan, Major Edward
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Perring, William George


Caine, Gordon Hall
Herbert, Col. Hon. A. (Yeovil)
Peto, Basil E.


Camplon, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Pielou, D. P.


Cassels, J. D.
Herbert, S. (Scarborough)
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton


Cautley, Henry Strother
Hewett, Sir J. P.
Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank
Privett, F. J.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Hiley, Sir Ernest
Rawson, Lieut.-Com. A. C.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord R. (Hitchin)
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Reid, D. D. (County Down)


Chapman, Sir S.
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Remnant, Sir James


Churchman, Sir Arthur
Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy
Rentoul, G. S.


Clarry, Reginald George
Hood, Sir Joseph
Reynolds, W. G. W.


Clayton, G. C.
Hopkins, John W. W.
Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend)


Coates, Lt.-Col. Norman
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)


Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Howard, Capt. D. (Cumberland, N.)
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Col. C. K.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. Sir S. (Ecclesall)


Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale
Hudson, Capt. A.
Robertson, J. D. (Islington, W.)


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Hughes, Collingwood
Rogerson, Capt. J. E.


Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim. South)
Hurd, Percy A.
Roundell, Colonel R, F.


Crook, C. W. (East Ham, North)
Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.
Ruggles-Brise, Major E.


Crooke, .J. S. (Deritend)
Hutchison, G. A. C. (Midlothian, N.)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Hutchison, W. (Kelvingrove)
Russell, William (Bolton)


Daiziel, Sir D. (Lambeth, Brixton)
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Russell-Wells, Sir Sydney


Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead)
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)




Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton.
Whitla, Sir William


Sandon, Lord
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser
Winterton, Earl


Sheffield, Sir Berkeley
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.
Wise, Frederick


Shepperson, E. W.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)
Wolmer, Viscount


Shipwright, Captain D.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)


Singleton, J. E.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


Skelton, A. N.
Turton, Edmund Russborough
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)
Vaughan-M organ, Col. K. P.
Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward


Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Wallace, Captain E.
Yerburgh, R. D. T.


Somerville, Daniel (Barrow-in-Furness)
Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)



Spears, Brig.-Gen. E, L.
Watson, Capt. J. (Stockton-on-Tees)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Stanley, Lord
Wells, S. R.
Colonel Leslie Wilson and Colonel Gibbs.


Stewart, Gershom (Wirral)
Weston, Colonel John Wakefield



Stott, Lt.-Col. W. H.
White, Lt.-Col. G. D. (Southport)

NEW CLAUSE.—(Amendment of s. 7 (2) of Geo. V, c. 30, s. 7.)

Paragraph (a) of Sub-section (2), Section seven, of the Unemployment Insurance Act. 1920, shall have effect as though the words "five shillings" were substituted for the words "three shillings and four pence."——[Mr. Frank Gray.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. FRANK GRAY: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The object of this Clause is to cure, not altogether, but, at any rate, partly, an existing defect, because it must be taken as a compromise. The defect could only be entirely eliminated by ruling out paragraph (a) of Sub-section (2) of Section 7. If it were the case that a man who is paying into this insurane scheme fell out of employment and sought some other part-time employment under which he secured cither 3s. 4d. or 5s. a day, there might be a great deal to be said against such a proposal. But that is not the case provided for by the existing Section. The existing Section and the proposed new Clause deal with the case of a man who at the time of becoming a contributor, in addition to his ordinary full-time employment, had a part-time or subsidiary employment in respect of which he drew remuneration, but in respect of which he made no contribution to the Insurance Fund. Under the existing arrangement a man in these circumstances, falling out of employment, may find that it is more beneficial to him to throw up his subsidiary employment and fall back upon the benefit which he would get under the Insurance Act, because in certain circumstances, having regard to the size of his family, he would get a larger sum per week under the insurance scheme without working than he would get by the subsidiary employment for which he received remuneration.
If I may give one instance to show how it works out—there are, as a matter of fact, three cases in my own constituency which are on all fours with one another— it is the case of a man who is a bricklayer and who certainly for the past two years, and I believe for a longer period, has been in full employment, and as a result, during the whole of that period, has been a contributor to the Insurance Fund. In addition to that employment his wife runs a beer-house. In my constituency, where we are very abstemious, there arc a great number of beer-houses, and, indeed, fully licensed houses in respect to which it is impossible for any licensed victualler or the holder of a licence to make an adequate income for himself and family. That is admitted. Under the agreement with the brewer the man is compelled to keep open the whole of the licensing hours, so that it follows that, as he is a whole-time bricklayer, somebody else has to do the work. It is the wife. The insurance authorities, because the licence is in the name of the man—which it must be, or almost invariably is, under the licensing regulations because it is the practice not to license married women— the insurance authorities assume wrongly that it is his business. Taking the holding of the licence as conclusive evidence, they assume, in the absence of proof to the contrary, that there is at least 3s. 4d. a day profit made, and, although that is made by the efforts of the wife while the man is at full-time employment, he is excluded from participating in any way in the fund to which he has been a contributor for at least three years. On the other hand, if, instead of the wife running these premises, she had been in receipt of a private income of £200 a year, then he would have been entitled to have benefited under the Insurance Act. It is obvious that the proposed Clause does not meet the whole case, but it would certainly meet that case of which I have given an instance and it would provide
for the circumstances of a man getting more by throwing over his subsidiary employment and doing nothing than he would get if he continued to work.
The matter arises from this fact. Under the original Act of 1911, there was no provision of this kind, because that was purely an Insurance Act, and, if a man contributes to an insurance fund, justice demands that he should be entitled to participate in it whatever other income he may have coming in, if he complies with the condition of the insurance, having lost the permanent employment in respect to which he has made his contribution. But the evil does not end there. In the case I have given—and there are a large number of such cases— if the man, after contributing three years, be ruled out of benefit on the ground of subsidiary employment, one would imagine as a basis of insurance that at least he would be able to get back his contributions or secure the return of the premiums, the Insurance Fund never having stood at any risk in respect of that man. Curiously enough, contrary to the principles of insurance under the principal Act, the man who does contribute and in respect of whom the Insurance Fund runs the risk and who attains the age of 60 is not only entitled to get his premiums or contributions back, but to get compound interest as well. Yet under the existing Section which I am seeking to amend, after the man has contributed over three years, or it may be a longer or shorter period, he is ruled out for benefit, because the fund is alleged never to have been at any risk, and yet he is not permitted to obtain any return of the premium.

Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: I beg to second the Motion.
I would like to ask the Minister if he has had time to consider a suggestion which was made to him in Committee from his side of the House as to whether it would be possible to devise some words which, by the introduction of a sliding scale, would relieve some of these cases The Minister said in Committee that he could not legislate for hard cases. That is true; but, on the other hand, the anomalies which exist under the law as it stands call for some amendment. My hon. Friend who has just spoken (Mr. F. Gray) has given one illustration. May I
give another just to bring home to the House how hardly this Section acts in what are even more deserving cases. We have the cases of trade union secretaries. I know of several who, to my own personal knowledge, are suffering very hardly from the slackness of the shipyards. One of these men, who went to draw his unemployment pay after having been out many months, was told that he was not entitled to it because he was drawing over 20s. a week as a trade union secretary in respect of the Insurance Acts, and because of that he could not be paid anything at all. This man is also a member of a local unemployment committee—one of those committees which, as the Minister has said over and over again, have rendered most valuable services.

Sir M. BARLOW: Hear, hear.

Mr. THOMSON: He put in an application to the Employment Exchange to draw subsistence allowance as a member of that Committee, but the Employment Exchange said to him, "For this purpose you are out of work, because you are not working at the shipyard which is your main employment, and therefore we cannot give you subsistence allowance." I do hope the Minister, when he comes to reply, may hold out some hope that he may be able to modify these hardships by some possible sliding scale. At the present time, if a. man has got 20s. 6d. a week as a trade union secretary, or for any other reason, he is deprived of the right of drawing unemployment benefit. If he were getting 20s. a week, he would draw the 16s. for himself, 5s. for his wife, and Is. each for his children, making, say,. 44s. in all; but, when he happens to be getting 20s. 6d., he drops from 44s. to 20s. 6d. I submit that it ought not to be beyond the wit of man, especially beyond the wit of the Minister of Labour, to devise some formula which will provide that a man may have a lower scale of benefit, if you like, under such circumstances. I submit this is one of those minor hardships which have an irritating effect upon those who are suffering, upon men who are most valuable in administering this Act, and who have done untold service in smoothing away difficulties for others in the past year and a half.

Mr. HAYDAY: In consequence of the varied character of the new Clause and the cases that experience has shown may be penalised by this Section, the Minis-
ter undertook in Committee to give consideration to this question. I hope in his reply, if he has been able to give that fair consideration, that he has kept well before him such cases as those which were mentioned. They were such cases as the man who does a little work in the evening at a theatre or music hall, or the man who may even be a temporary porter carrying somebody's bag but who is disqualified for benefit if seen doing it. There is also the instance given in Committee of a person who was on unemployment benefit herself, but because she had helped a neighbour to do her spring-cleaning and received 4s. for it, was disqualified from benefit. It is because of that large class of case now coming into this difficult period that I hope the Minister has been able to review the whole question. If it is a favourable answer, with a suggested scale to meet the proportion of income earned, I think it would be of benefit to the fund and would give encouragement to unemployed persons to accept temporary or subsidiary work.

Sir M. BARLOW: I am sorry that I should have created the impression that I was treating one or two of these Amendments in somewhat cavalier fashion. I did not intend to convey-that impression at all. I think most of those who are present in the House, or a large proportion of them, were members of the Standing Committee. We thrashed the thing out very fully upstairs. It was with the view of accelerating our proceedings as much as possible that I did not take up time to-day with long explanations. However, with regard to this question of subsidiary occupations, perhaps it is desirable that I should say more than I said on previous Amendments. And for two reasons. In the first place, we have to keep very clearly before us exactly what it is with which we are dealing. There is a tendency to confuse two problems. One is the problem of the odd-job man, and the other the problem of subsidiary employment. They are quite different, though they tend to impinge on one another. The hon. Member was quite right in saying that I gave an undertaking. I shall have an opportunity on Third Reading of stating very shortly the effect of the various undertakings I gave. I gave
nine undertakings. I am glad to say that of those nine, I can carry out, or am carrying out, far the larger proportion, but with regard to two I am sorry to say that I have been unable to reach the solution for which some hon. Members hoped.
What is the problem? In Committee I took the case of a carpenter whose regular and main employment was that of working in wood. But in the evenings he has a subsidiary employment as a scene shifter. It is not an uncommon case. What is the position? He pays contributions as a carpenter. We will assume that he is out of work as a carpenter. He therefore receives benefit because he is out of work in his main occupation. He receives 15s. for himself, 5s. for his wife, and 1s. for each child; that is, 22s. in all if he has two children. Then he goes to work in the evening. It has to be a regular occupation, ordinarily followed by him in addition to his usual employment. It is not the case of the occasional odd-job man. The subsidiary employment has to be a regular occupation. The Act says that if you have this subsidiary employment in which you are engaged, you shall be entitled to receive £1 in respect of that subsidiary employment, but not more. If you receive more you are getting on to the level of a person who is more than in a position of subsidiary employment. Let us see how it works in fact. Take the case of the carpenter who is married and has two children. He is getting 22s. a week unemployment benefit, also getting up to 20s. a week for his subsidiary occupation, or 42s. in all. Hon. Members may say, "Not enough," and I will not quarrel with them. But in the present state of wages in many semi-skilled or unskilled occupations you are getting very near the line when, with this amount coming into the household, the inducement is not very great for a man to seek work in his main occupation, which is that of a carpenter.
The new Clause proposes to extend the 20s. to 30s. If that were carried out the limit would be as follows in the case I have stated: The man would be getting, not 42s., but 52s. as the limit, although he is not engaged in his main occupation. I suggest that you are getting near a limit where the motive not to seek for work in the main occupation would be emphasised. I was a good deal impressed with the sug-
gestion of a sliding scale. Suppose you took 40s. as a fixed point. Then suppose a man got 20s. from benefits—a man and wife with no children—and 22s. from a subsidiary employment. In order to give him an effective inducement to work you should have a half-and-half make up, so to speak. In other words you should say to him, "If you have 20s. coming in as unemployment benefit, and 22s. from your subsidiary work, let us halve that 2s. extra and deduct only 1s. of it from unemployment benefit," and let him then get to his scale, not of 42s., but of 41s. There is a good deal in that proposal at first sight, and it has the advantage of very pretty arithmetical calculation. As a matter of fact the difficulties about it are very great. I have gone into the matter very carefully.
In the first place, it would be extremely difficult to get evidence on facts. I do not know what would happen if I were to come to the House and appeal for a large army of inspectors who could see whether arrangements of this sort were being carried out properly. On fact alone the administrative difficulties would be very great. Further than that, we have discussed at some length the question of the use of unemployment benefit as a subsidy in aid of wages. I have strong views about them. Here, again, primậ facie, it seems a very reasonable proposition, but, frankly, I am against it. In a memorandum which has been circulated the views which I support are expressed with sufficient clarity. If it is right that the benefit should not be used in aid of wages, it is a broad principle to which we ought to adhere. This makeup suggestion does really partake of the same vice—I use the word not in any moral sense—and the same logical error, that it is in effect working on the lines of a subsidy in aid of wages. What would be possible is this: If we can get a real development, as I hope we can, of the principle of insurance by industry, more could be done along the lines of make-up than is possible in a State

scheme pure and simple. Where you have insurance by industry you have a committee on both sides, employers and workmen, who are handling the cases and know the men. I am sorry that I cannot accept the new Clause, though I have a great deal of sympathy with it. I hope the House will realise that we have devoted a good deal of thought to it, and that it is only after that consideration that I am against the proposal.

Mr. R. YOUNG: I am sure that many hon. Members will be very disappointed at the Minister's reply. When the last Bill was before the House I made a suggestion to the then Minister. I am afraid that the present Minister has not taken it into consideration, possibly because his notice has not been drawn to it. Many men are being penalised now. A man may have a wife and seven or eight children under the age of 16. If he has eight children he will be entitled to 28s. a week. If he gets 20s. 6d. also, he will lose 7s. 6d. as a result. The suggestion which I made to the late Minister was that the difference could be made up to the man. In other words, the man would get no more money than ho would be entitled to under the Act; he would receive from the Employment Exchange the difference between the amount he was earning and the amount he would be entitled to in proportion to the size of his family. That would have been a fair and proper thing to do. Otherwise there is every inducement for a man who has seven or eight children to throw up his 21s. per week work and to get his 27s. or 28s. for doing nothing. I again appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to consider the matter before the Bill reaches another place. I am particularly anxious that men should not throw up these subsidiary employments, because they will thus get a bigger payment from the unemployment fund.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The House divided: Ayes, 153; Noes, 219.

Division No. 49.]
AYES.
[7.30 p.m.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Berkeley, Captain Reginald
Buchanan, G.


Ammon, Charles George
Bonwick, A.
Buckle, J.


Attlee, C. R.
Bowdler, W, A.
Cairns, John


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Briant, Frank
Chapple, W. A.


Barnes, A.
Broad, F. A.
Charleton, H. C.


Batey, Joseph
Brotherton, J.
Clarke, Sir E. C.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Riley, Ben


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)
Ritson, J.


Darbishire, C. W.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Roberts, C. H. (Derby)


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Royce, William Stapleton


Davies, J. C. (Denbigh, Denbigh)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Saklatvala, S.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Scrymgeour, E.


Duffy, T. Gavan
Jowett, F. W. (Bradford, East)
Sexton, James


Duncan, C.
Jowitt, W. A. (The Hartlepools)
Shinwell, Emanuel


Ede, James Chuter
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Kenyon, Barnet
Sinclair, Sir A.


Falconer, J.
Kirkwood, D.
Smith, T. (Pontefract)


Foot, Isaac
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Snell, Harry


Gilbert, James Daniel
Lansbury, George
Snowden, Philip


Gosling, Harry
Lawson, John James
Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Leach, W.
Spencer, H. H. (Braoford, S.)


Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)
Lee, F.
Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.


Gray, Frank (Oxford)
Lees-Smith, H. B. (Keighley)
Stephen, Campbell


Greenall, T.
Linfield, F. C.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Lowth, T.
Strauss, Edward Anthony


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Lunn, William
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
MacDonald, J. R. (Aberavon)
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Groves, T.
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Thornton, M.


Grundy, T. W.
M Entee, V. L.
Tillett, Benjamin


Guthrie, Thomas Maule
McLaren, Andrew
Trevelyan, C. P.


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Turner, Ben


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
March, S.
Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)


Harbord, Arthur
Marks, Sir George Croydon
Warne, G. H.


Hardie, George D.
Marshall, Sir Arthur H.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Harney, E. A.
Martin, F. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, E.)
Webb, Sidney


Harris, Percy A.
Maxton, James
Wedgwood, Colonel Joslah C.


Hay, Captain J. P. (Cathcart)
Middleton, G.
Weir, L. M.


Hayday, Arthur
Millar, J. D.
Westwood, J.


Hayes, John Henry (Edge Hill)
Morel, E. D.
Wheatley, J.


Henderson, Sir T. (Roxburgh)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
White, H. G. (Birkenhead, E.)


Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Muir, John W.
Whiteley, W.


Herriotts, J.
Murray, John (Leeds, West)
Wignall, James


Hillary, A. E.
Nichol, Robert
Williams, David (Swansea, E.)


Hinds, John
O'Grady, Captain James
Williams, T (York, Don Valley)


Hirst, G. H.
Oliver, George Harold
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Hodge, Rt. Hon. John
Paling, W.
Wintringham, Margaret


Hodge, Lieut.-Col. J. P. (Preston)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Wright, W.


Hogge, James Myles
Ponsonby, Arthur
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Hutchison, sir R. (Kirkcaldy)
Potts, John S.



Irving. Dan
Pringle, W. M. R.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Mr. Phillips and Major Mackenzie Wood.


NOES.


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.
Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton, East)
Cassels, J. D.
Flanagan, W. H.


Apsley, Lord
Cautley, Henry Strother
Foreman, Sir Henry


Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Forestier-Walker, L.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Wilfrid W.
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot


Astor, Viscountess
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord R. (Hitchin)
Frece, Sir Walter de


Baird, Rt. Hon. Sir John Lawrence
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Furness, G. J.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Chapman, Sir S.
Galbraith, J. F. W.


Banks, Mitchell
Churchman, Sir Arthur
Ganzoni, Sir John


Barlow, Rt. Hon. Sir Montague
Clarry, Reginald George
Gates, Percy


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Clayton, G. C.
Gaunt, Rear-Admiral Sir Guy R.


Barnston, Major Harry
Coates, Lt.-Col. Norman
Goff, Sir R. Park


Becker, Harry
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Gray, Harold (Cambridge)


Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)


Bellairs, Commander Cariyon W.
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Gretton, Colonel John


Berry, Sir George
Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale
Guest, Hon. C. H. (Bristol, N.)


Betterton, Henry B.
Conway, Sir W. Martin
Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South)
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.


Blundell, F. N.
Crook, C. W. (East Ham, North)
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Crooke, J. S. (Deritend)
Halstead, Major D.


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A,
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Brass, Captain W.
Dalziel, Sir D. (Lambeth, Brixton)
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead)
Harrison, F. C.


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Harvey, Major S. E.


Briggs, Harold
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Hawke, John Anthony


Brittain, Sir Harry
Dawson, Sir Philip
Hay, Major T. W. (Norfolk, South)


Brown, Major D. C. (Hexham)
Doyle, N. Grattan
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Newbury)
Du Pre, Colonel William Baring
Herbert, Col. Hon. A. (Yeovil)


Bruton, Sir James
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford. Watford)


Buckingham, Sir H.
Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Herbert, S. (Scarborough)


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Ellis, R. G.
Hewett, Sir J. P.


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank


Burn, Colonel Sir Charles Rosdew
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Hiley, Sir Ernest


Butcher, Sir John George
Erskine-Bolst, Captain C.
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.


Cadogan, Major Edward
Falcon, Captain Michael
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D.(St. Marylebone)




Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.
Shipwright, Captain D.


Hood, Sir Joseph
Morris, Harold
Singleton, J. E.


Hopkins, John W. W.
Morrison, Hugh (Wilts, Salisbury)
Skelton, A. N.


Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Nesbitt, Robert C.
Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)


Howard, Capt. D. (Cumberland, N.)
Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)
Smith, Sir Harold (Wavertree)


Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Col. C. K.
Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Hudson, Capt. A.
Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John
Somerville, Daniel (Barrow-in-Furness)


Hughes, Collingwood
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Stanley, Lord


Hume, G. H.
Paget, T. G.
Stott, Lt.-Col. W. H.


Hurd, Percy A.
Pease, William Edwin
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton.


Hurst Lt.-Col. Gerald Berkeley
Penny, Frederick George
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Hutchison, G. A. C. (Midlothian, N.)
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid H.


Hutchison, W. (Kelvingrove)
Perring, William George
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Peto, Basil E.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Jackson, Lieut. Colonel Hon. F. S.
Pielou, D. P.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Jodrell, Sir Neville Paul
Pilditch, Sir Philip
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
Turton, Edmund Russborough


Kennedy, Captain M. S. Nigel
Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


King, Captain Henry Douglas
Privett, F. J.
Wallace, Captain E.


Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Rawson, Lieut.-Com. A. C.
Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)


Lamb, J.Q.
Remnant, Sir James
Watson, Capt. J. (Stockton-on-Tees)


Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Colonel G. R.
Rentoul, G. S.
Wells, S. R.


Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C.)
Reynolds, W. G. W.
Weston, Colonel John Wakefield


Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Richardson, sir Alex. (Gravesend)
White, Lt.-Col. G. D. (Southport)


Lloyd-Greame, Rt. Hon. Sir P.
Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir p. (Chertsey)
Whitla, Sir William


Lorden, John William
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)
Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond)


Lorlmer, H. D.
Robertson, J. D. (Islington, W.)
Winterton, Earl


Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)
Rogerson, Capt. J. E.
Wise, Frederick


Lumley, L, R.
Rounded, Colonel R. F.
Wolmer, Viscount


McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)
Ruggles-Brise, Major E.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)


Manville, Edward
Russell, Alexander west (Tynemouth)
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


Margesson, H. D. R.
Russell, William (Bolton)
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Mason, Lieut.-Col. C. K.
Russell-Wells, Sir Sydney
Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward


Mercer, Colonel H.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Yerburgh, R. D. T.


Milne, J. S. Wardlaw
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)



Mitchell, W. F. (Saffron Walden)
Sandon, Lord
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Molloy, Major L. G. S.
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley
Colonel Leslie Wilson and Colonel Gibbs.


Molson, Major John Elsdale
Shepperson, E. W.



Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.

Mr. SPEAKER: With regard to the proposed new Clause next on the Paper —(Period for qualifying for benefit)—in the name of the hon. Member for St. Helens (Mr. Sexton), it seems to raise very much the same question as that which we discussed on the new Clause previously proposed by the hon. Member.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Exemptions.)

All persons engaged in seasonal trades in which the duration of seasonal employment is too short to enable them to qualify for benefit shall be exempted from the operation of this or the principal Act.—[Mr. F. Martin.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. F. MARTIN: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The Clause is purposely left somewhat vague but we have a very definite case in mind. It is the case of a large number of women who are employed in the herring fishing industry for a short time in each year— so short a period that it is impossible for them ever to qualify to obtain benefit under the Act. We desire that these, women be exempted from paying contributions under the Act. A good many hundreds of women are affected by this proposal, and they are largely of two
classes. A large number are the wives and daughters of fishermen on the East Coast of Scotland and there are also women belonging to the crofter class from the Hebrides and the West Highlands. They are employed for a few weeks in each year in the herring curing industry, and no doubt some right hon. and hon. Members may have seen them at their work on the East Coast during the season. They are very expert and nimble workers but unfortunately the period of their employment at this work is very short.
I wish to put this point to the Minister: that this work is really a subsidiary occupation. The main occupation of these women during the greater part of the year is, in the case of the East Coast women, domestic service to which they return at the end of the fishing season, and in the case of the women from the crofts in the Hebrides and the Highlands, their main occupation is agriculture. Both agriculture and domestic service arc already exempted, and we ask that this exemption should be extended to the case I have mentioned. The Act is really of no benefit at all to the fishing industry on the East Coast of Scotland, because the men engaged in it arc nearly all partners or share fishermen, and they neither pay
contributions nor receive benefit, and it seems extraordinarily hard that the womenfolk should be compelled to pay contributions when they have absolutely no chance of reaping any benefit.

Sir ROBERT HAMILTON: I beg to second the Motion.
In doing so, I ask the House to extend to me the courtesy which is always shown to a Member addressing it for the first time. The Clause before the House is very short, but it expresses clearly our intention. It seems perfectly obvious that the Clause embodies a very common-sense proposal. It is ridiculous to ask people to pay premiums to an insurance fund from which they can obtain no benefit whatever, but not only are people asked to pay premiums in this case, but they are compelled to pay premiums under a penalty of, I believe, £10 for noncompliance. We have the spectacle of these women—and I, like the Mover, am referring particularly to the women engaged in the fishing industry—being compelled to pay contributions to a fund from which they can never obtain any benefit. I have had representations made to me from the County Council of Shetland that I should push this matter as far as I could, if I had the opportunity. After two years' experience of the working of the Act it is felt locally that the Act works with great hardship towards these people. I know the Minister will meet this proposal by saying that these people can obtain exemption if they like. It is true that they can do so, and I have here the form which they are required to fill up in order to obtain exemption. What I complain about is, that these people should be included in the Act and then left to get out of it by claiming exemption. That is not the right way to proceed. They should be excluded from the operations of the Act in the first instance, and it should not be left to them, poor and ignorant as they are, to claim exemption. I should like to refer, at this point, to the instructions given by the Ministry of Labour on the printed circular which accompanies these exemption forms. It is to this effect:
It should be particularly noted that the certificate of exemption from unemployment insurance is operative only from the date upon which it is granted, and for the period specified. Unemployment insurance contributions are required to be paid at the full
rate up to the date of the granting of the certificate of exemption.
So that what may in fact occur is that these fish workers will come down from the Hebrides or elsewhere to the herring fishing during the season in Shetland. A worker goes away to one of the outlying islands, is taken on and commences work, and then she is left to get one of these forms, if she can, to fill it up, if she can, and to send it in to the proper quarter, if she can. Even then she will not recover what she has already paid, but if that form gets to the right quarter in the end she will be relieved from paying anymore. It is against that, that this Clause is directed. We think the Government have proceeded here in the wrong direction, by sweeping into their net all these poor and ignorant people, and leaving it to them to try to get out of it again. We, therefore, propose the very simple and common-sense Clause that these people should be excluded. That meets with the object and desire of the Ministry themselves, because they say they have no desire to tax these people for a benefit which they cannot obtain. Therefore, I say, Why not exclude them at once? Not only would it do away with an irritating and what I might almost call an unjust Clause, but it has this further great advantage, that it could be done without any cost to the Exchequer. Some of the propositions that have been put forward to-night would, I am afraid, have cost something, if carried. If I can put something before the Minister which will cost nothing, and perhaps even effect a small saving in administration, I am sure it will give an added zest to the attention that the right hon. Gentleman will give to it, and at a time like this, when we are threatened with the spectacle of the Chancellor of the Exchequer begging for sixpences outside the British Museum, I am sure that anything that can be done without cost to the Exchequer, and that is a just thing, should be done. In conclusion, I would respectfully say that the Minister of Labour has given us on this side the impression that he is most anxious to be fair and just all round, and I would ask him to take this Clause into consideration and to be fair and just to these fish workers, and thereby acquire merit.

Sir M. BARLOW: I am sure we can all congratulate the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Sir E. Hamilton)
on the admirable maiden speech he has delivered. There is real point in the proposed Clause, in which he puts the case of the fish workers, but that is not the only case. There are similar cases of seasonal occupations which present some difficulty. The hon. Member says, and quite rightly, that I shall doubtless refer him to the provisions of the Act with regard to exemption, but I would call attention to the fact that the word used is "exemption" and not "exclusion." The difference would seem to be very small, but it is material from the point of view of the Act. If it be a case of exemption, the worker does not contribute, but the contributions from the employer and the State go on, and they continue, very much to the advantage of the worker. If it be a case of exclusion, which is rather what my hon. Friend has suggested, the contributions from the employer and the State do not go on.
What is the position in regard to exemptions? It is this, that in cases where a person is ordinarily and mainly dependent for his livelihood on the earnings derived by him from an occupation, employment in which does not make him an employed person within the meaning of the Act, he is to be entitled to a certificate of exemption. If this be a case for exemption, if this work be so subsidiary in character that the individual concerned is not really and mainly dependent upon it, but is mainly dependent on some other occupation, then a certificate of exemption is available. If that exemption be granted—and, as far as the facts are put before me by the Mover and Seconder of the Clause, I fail to see why there should not be a certificate of exemption granted—see what happens. The contributions of the employer and the State go on, and then, if the worker in question ever comes into benefit properly speaking, by conning into an insurable occupation in the ordinary way, that worker will be untitled to benefit on a basis of half-contribution.

Sir R. HAMILTON: What we wanted to make clear was that these women are employed for only about eight weeks in the year, and then go back to their homes, to their crofts, so that that question does not arise.

Sir M. BARLOW: It does not arise normally, but it may arise, and that is
the point of exemption as distinct from exclusion. If the two hon. Members had their way and secured exclusion, there would not be this advantage which does, in my submission, now accrue to the workers. You may say that in a large number of eases it would be a hypothetical advantage, but it is a possible advantage, and if they got into an insurable occupation they would have a claim for benefit, and that would be the difference between exemption and exclusion. Either this is a case for exemption, or it is not. If it be a case for exemption, then I think these workers will have a not unsatisfactory situation in front of them. If it be not a case for exemption, then there will be possibilities of benefit being paid supposing at any time this fish work was not available, but I am afraid I am not prepared—I accept the courteous words used by the hon. Member with regard to myself —to carry the matter further than the exemption proposals as indicated in the Act of 1920. I am sorry that the form involved is so lengthy. That is the way of official forms, but I suggest that it is really more advantageous, from the workers' point of view, to have exemption along the lines I have suggested, with a possible advantage in future, than to have the exclusion for which he is asking.

Major McKENZIE WOOD: We are very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for the sympathy he has given us in regard to this question, which has evoked a great deal of controversy in the North of Scotland. I understand the right hon. Gentleman admits what is put forward by my two hon. Friends, that these women are compelled to pay contributions and have practically no hope of getting any benefits in return. That is the basis of this Clause, and the right hon. Gentleman says, as I gather, that they can be exempted if they fill up certain forms. I do not think he has given that aspect of the question the attention which he gave to the other, because my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Sir R. Hamilton) pointed out that in this particular case there is no hope to be got along these lines, as in nearly every case these women are employed for only about eight or even fewer weeks at a time. They, therefore, cannot put in an application for exemption until they are employed, because, of course, they cannot tell who their employer is or whether they will be employed. By the
time they have put in their application for exemption, it is too late, because it takes a good number of weeks, as every one here knows, before their case can c come up and be decided by the Ministry, and before it is decided their employment has ceased, they have gone back to their I homes, and, according to the regulations made, any decision cannot be retrospective. Therefore, my point is this, that there is no help and no prospect for the women along these lines.
What I would point out to the right hon. Gentleman and to the House is that the class of people referred to in this Clause are all women, and not only that, but they are women of the very poorest class. I could quite understand the Minister saying that he cannot make exceptions of a small class of this kind if they were earning high wages, but they are not. They are very poor people, who come from their domestic duties to carry out this work, and the small sum of money which he exacts under this Act weekly is of the greatest importance to them. I hope he will do something to meet the case of these women, who cannot be expected to fill up forms, even if they knew how to do so, and if they did fill up the forms they would get no real advantage. If the right hon. Gentleman would do something to facilitate the means by which they could get the exemptions, which, I am sure, he is anxious to give them, I do not think he would do any harm to his scheme, and he would do a great deal of good to a very deserving and necessitous class of the community in the North of Scotland.

Sir M. BARLOW: I will rise at once, with the permission of the House, to say that if there be any means by which, by Regulation or by rule—apart from the Act of Parliament, which I cannot alter—I can deal with any difficulties that arise in connection with the exemption, I will gladly look into it at once and see what can be done.

Mr. T. HENDERSON: This is one of the Clauses in regard to which I think I would be inclined to support the Minister of Labour, for this reason, that if this is going to cover all the women who take part in the fish-curing industry, I want to be assured that it will not have anything to do with the women who leave the East Coast of Scotland and follow the different
fishings down towards the North-East Coast of England. There are numerous Women employed in the fish-curing industry who leave parts of Scotland and come down to England to perform their work, and if this exemption is going to cover those women, then I would be prepared to follow the Labour Minister

Mr. PRINGLE: I think the hon. Member for Tradeston (Mr. T. Henderson) really misunderstands the case made for this Clause. It has not in view the particular class to which he refers, who follow the fish season round the coast, because obviously their term of occupation extends long enough for them to get benefits. This Clause applies only to those whose season is so short that they cannot draw benefit.

Mr. T. HENDERSON: I would point out that exemption can be obtained now.

Mr. PRINGLE: Yes, but we are dealing with the method by which it can be obtained. I was coming to that point, but the first thing I had in view was to point out to the hon. Member that, in opposing this Clause, he has in view a different class from those for whom the Mover and Seconder wish to obtain exemption. It is true that the only question at issue is the method of obtaining exemption. As the Minister of Labour pointed out, it is possible to obtain exemption by application, but this is a cumbrous system. It has to be done in each individual case, and it can be done only by filling up a very extended form, which is somewhat difficult of understanding for the ordinary person employed in such an industry; and, furthermore, this application would have to be made each season, in respect of a period that does not extend over eight weeks, and then the exemption applies only for the small part of the period which would remain after the exemption had been granted. In practice, therefore, if we consider how the usual Government Departments act, you may take it that practically the whole period of employment would have come to an end. before the exemption had been granted. Therefore, even if they applied, they would be in this unfortunate position of having paid the contributions all the time, and therefore been taxed for a benefit which they would never receive. The real point is that here is not an insurance proposition at all; it is simply taxation, and nothing else. These people
are being taxed for the benefit of other people. We have no right, simply because these people form a very small class and exist in only a few constituencies, represented by two or three hon. Members in this House, to inflict this injustice upon them.
8.0 P.M.
I quite understand that the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to do something. He suggests that a Regulation may be made. I suggest that before this Debate took place he had an opportunity of ascertaining whether such a Regulation could, in fact, be made under the Act. I doubt very much whether such a Regulation is competent, and that is why my two hon. Friends have put down this new Clause. They believe that a new Clause is required to protect these people. It may be that the new Clause is not adequate or well conceived for this particular purpose, or that it may cover more than the Mover or Seconder intends. I agree all these things are possible, but granting, as I think we are entitled to take for granted, that a Regulation cannot do this, and that the present system of individual application for exemption does not relieve these people, I say there is a case for the new Clause for this purpose, and I would ask the right hon. Gentleman, if he resists this Clause but accepts the case made to agree to insert in another place a Clause properly conceived for this purpose. I do not myself think that the drafting of this Clause is very happily conceived for the purpose. I think other words could have been employed in a better way to secure the object in view, but the mere objection to the drafting, I think, is not sufficient ground for this House rejecting the proposal. The proposal, on the admission of the Minister, is sound and just, and there is only one hon. Member who has shown any tendency to disagree, and that disagreement is founded, as I have pointed out, on a misunderstanding. As there is no case against the proposal, I would ask the right hon. Gentleman at least to accept the suggestion I have made, namely, that he will set this matter right by a new Clause moved in another place.

Sir M. BARLOW: The Clause itself provides:
All claims for exemption shall be made to and certificates of exemption granted by
the Minister in the prescribed manner and subject to the prescribed conditions.
The word "prescribed" there refers to the Minister's power to make regulations. The normal period for which exemptions are granted—there seems to have been some misunderstanding, I do not say it has always been so, but there have been some questions raised in the discussion—is not a period limited to a particular occasion. The normal period is a period of three years. If there has been any difficulty about the exemption being granted for a longer period than eight weeks under consideration in any one case, and I think some hon. Gentlemen have suggested that was the normal time -—if there has been any difficulty about the exemption being granted for the usual three years I will look into it at once, and I do not think there ought to be any difficulty about meeting that difficulty and corning to some arrangement which will be satisfactory under the powers contained in that Section.

Mr. PRINGLE: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that there is power under the Section to grant exemption to classes as distinct from individuals?

Sir M. BARLOW: That is a point I should like to consider. I am not quite sure whether it is so, but I can quite conceive it would be possible to make Regulations where classification is clear for dealing with that point.

Mr. MARDY JONES: Is it possible, instead of each individual claiming exemption on an individual form, to have a consolidated form which they could sign generally for the same exemption?

Sir M. BARLOW: I am not sure how that is, but I will undertake to look Into it.

Mr. F. MARTIN: In asking leave to withdraw the Motion, I should like to thank the Minister of Labour for what he has said, and to express the hope that he will give this matter every consideration and do his best to help this class.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. SPEAKER: With regard to the next Amendment on the Paper, I notice that it was discussed at great length in the Committee upstairs, to the extent of 21
columns [in the OFFICIAL REPORT], and if I do not pass it over now I hope the discussion will be a brief one.

CLAUSE 1.—(Prolongation of fourth special period.)

The fourth special period defined in Section three of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1922 (in this Act referred to as "the Act of 1922"), shall be extended so as to terminate on the seventeenth day of October, nineteen hundred and twenty-three, instead of on the first day of July, nineteen hundred and twenty-three, and the provisions of the said Act relating to benefit within the fourth special period shall have effect subject to the following modifications:
(1) The periods for which a person may be authorised to receive benefit shall he periods not exceeding in the aggregate forty-four weeks:
(2) When a person has received benefit in the fourth special period for periods amounting in the aggregate to twenty-two weeks, he shall cease to be qualified for the receipt of benefit in the fourth special period until the expiration of two weeks from the date (whether falling before or after the commencement of this Act) on which the last period in respect of which benefit was payable ended.
(3) Notwithstanding anything in any Act, no person shall, except by virtue of an authorisation given by the Minister under Section four of the Act of 1922 as amended by this Act, receive benefit in the fourth special period for periods amounting in the aggregate to more than twenty-six weeks, and no person shall, whether by virtue of such an authorisation as aforesaid or otherwise, receive benefit in the fourth special period for periods amounting in the aggregate to more than forty-four weeks.

Mr. HAYDAY: I beg to move, after the word "modifications" ["subject to the following modifications"], to insert the words
(1) Any person who is normally employed in such employment as would make him an employed person within the moaning of the principal Act, and who is genuinely seeking but is unable to obtain employment, shall he qualified for the receipt of benefit during the fourth special period notwithstanding that by reason that he does not satisfy the first statutory condition, or that he is disqualified under Sub-section (4) of Section eight of the principal Act for receiving benefit, or by reason of the provisions of paragraph (3) of the Second Schedule to the principal Act, he may not be entitled to benefit, and the provisions of the principal Act relating to the payment of benefit as modified by this Section shall apply during the fourth special period, and Section four of the Act of nineteen hundred and twenty-two is hereby repealed.
So far as I am concerned, my remarks will be brief, although this is a matter of very grave importance. We feel that the Amendment will do exactly what was intended to be done during the special periods owing to the excessive distress. There has been a growing tendency to increase the number of disqualifications by Regulations and Rules issued through the Ministry, and if this Amendment were carried—it is too much to hope that it will be accepted—it would certainly permit the person normally employed in a trade now impressed by the Insurance Act, but who has been unable through unemployment to qualify by stamped records in that trade, so long as he or she are genuinely seeking but unable to obtain employment, to be admitted to benefit. The reason why what is termed the uncovenanted special periods were introduced was the fact that, prior to November, 1920, the sudden placing of the 1920 Act on the Statute Book occurred at a time when the 8,000,000 persons so impressed had no opportunity of having a previous qualification for stamped benefit In fact, many thousands of them were unemployed at the time the Act came into operation. We have heard during the previous discussions on this point that gradually the uncovenanted rights are becoming swallowed up in the covenanted or stamped establishment rights for benefit. Now, the persons asking for the free period of benefit must, before they can enjoy that, have previously established a stamped right, and unless that stamped right is established, all professions of extending the special period so as to enable 44 weeks of benefit to be paid out of a possible 50 is so much eyewash and misrepresentation of the true position of things to the persons who are hopeful of being able to secure some benefit and advantage from this extended period.
It would certainly also include the single persons who to-day are entirely excluded from the uncovenanted benefit. It would prevent the inquisitorial investigations now taking place into the home income, using those incomes for the purpose of disqualifying single persons from any entitlement to benefit. There are many other branches and classes of cases that one could mention: for instance, aliens. I have no desire, however, to go into that matter. I think I am quite wise in taking the hint of Mr. Speaker that,
as 21 columns were taken up in discussing the details in Committee upstairs, and as there is a desire to get this Bill through to-night in order that it may operate by 12th April, I should not extend my remarks. In these circumstances, I should have been hopeful that the Minister would have realised the genuine help we are desirous of giving him by not prolonging the discussions unduly. I hope that will appeal to him in the spirit of the real comradeship, the common bond of sympathy and the desire to help that exists between us in this matter, so that when he makes his few remarks in reply to the arguments used in favour of the Amendment we shall be able to take a more hopeful outlook as opposed to the gloomy faces we have been compelled to draw as a result of the blank refusals with which we have met in regard to some proposals which we consider very important.

Mr. GOSLING: I beg to second the Amendment. Unlike my hon. Friend who has just spoken, I am not able to pass over the question of the alien. There are a great many who complain bitterly that they are unable to obtain the same benefits that other citizens who pay into this Fund obtain, and yet at the same time they are denied the right of naturalisation. Perhaps I should be out of order if I went very deeply into that question, except to say that the one turns on the other so definitely that to attempt to avoid speaking of the disadvantage that the inability to get naturalisation confers on these people, and not to emphasise that it makes all the difficulty that these people experience on this question of unemployed insurance would be impossible. In the old days we used to speak of the alien in a far different way to that in which it is understood to-day, and the word since the War has meant practically anything. Yet those for whom I am speaking are citizens of very long standing. There has been a man to see me in the precincts of this House to-day who is a tradesman, a shopkeeper, a ratepayer, who has a family that have been educated here, whose children have won scholarships in our schools, and yet who is still an alien, although for many years he has made application for naturalisation. What we want is that the aliens, until they can be relieved— and they can only secure this now by
the consent of the Home Office, who have considerably increased their fees; namely, from £3 to £10, thus making what was already a very difficult task of obtaining the £3 much more difficult by the need to find £10, which many of them are unable to do—should have any assistance, the Minister can give in regard to their case. There are two other points which are very, very serious. The first concerns men engaged in sailing barges in and out of ports, particularly in the great trade between London and the towns on the Medway; and men working on the canals. The difficulty that these men are in is that, in a sense, they carry their houses with them.

It being a quarter past Eight of the Clock, and leave having been given to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 10, further Proceeding was postponed, without Question put.

Orders of the Day — DEPORTATIONS TO IRELAND.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I beg to move, "That this House do now adjourn."
I want, in the first place, to say that I would not have assisted in the Motion for the Adjournment to-night, if I had not had the feeling that this matter is one of very urgent public importance. I think no subject is so important to this House as that of the liberty of each individual citizen. I think no question ought to be so jealously guarded by the Members of this Chamber as security to every citizen. Whether he be high or low, rich or poor, he should have the full liberty about which the British Government and the British Constitution have for long years boasted. To-day we have a. set of conditions which are practically unknown to this country, if one would forget the War years. Secondly, I want to point out, that it is not my business to-night to discuss either the merits or the demerits of the Irish Free State Government. It is not my business to take the side of the rebels or the side of the Free State Government. It is my business to-night, as representative of a constituency, to defend the liberties and rights of British citizens, and, speaking for the party to which I belong, so long as we have a voice, so long as we have strength con-
tained within ourselves, we will not abate one jot, or one iota, but will always defend the right of the British citizen, and particularly the working people. Having said that. I want to say, in the first place, that when this Act, under which the Regulations are now taking effect, was originally drafted, it was in 1920, when our country was then in a state of war with Ireland. It was felt then that as the whole of Ireland was practically at war. these Regulations were needed in order to carry on the Government of this country. But to-day a different set of circumstances exists. The war with Ireland, so far as we are concerned, has now come to an end. We have given Ireland the same form of government, practically, that we have given to Canada and Australia. We have, in. fact, had questions refused in this House because those questions dealt with the internal affairs of Ireland, and, I think, quite rightly. But here we have, under the guise of an Act. people arrested and deported to another country. I would point out that the action of the British Government, even as far as the Regulations themselves are concerned, was illegal.

Mr. DEPUTY - SPEAKER (Captain FitzRoy): I would point out at this early stage of the hon. Member's speech that the question on which he has obtained the leave of the House to move the Adjournment is a very narrow issue, and that on the Motion for the Adjournment the other night, the question of the legality of the action of the Government was fully discussed. It must, therefore, not be brought under discussion again to-night.

Mr. BUCHANAN: The point I wish to make is, that the "Regulations, under which those men are now in Ireland, distinctly stated that the place of internment would be contained in their indictment or in the notice served on them. We have prisoners in Ireland who, before being taken there, ought to have been served with a notice as to which place they were going to be kept in Ireland. We have been assured that they are in Mountjoy, but I submit that we arc not sure at the moment that they are in Mountjoy at all. After all, can the Home Secretary or the Government interfere with the Irish Free State in moving about prisoners as they like? When once you have transferred
a man from your jurisdiction to another State, then you have handed him over to that State, and it is the duty of that State to do what they like with the people in their charge. These people, who have never been proved guilty of any crime, and against whom there has been no charge preferred, are at this moment in Ireland under the control of the Free State, and liable to be moved whenever the Free State Government require them to be moved. There was a further question raised at Question Time. Some of us, who are Members of Parliament representing constituencies whence those people came, thought that truth and fairplay demanded that we ought to go and see those people, and inquire as to the facts.
One would have fancied that, if the British Government were correct in their attitude, that if there was so much behind their attitude of fair-play as the Home Secretary led us to believe, they would have welcomed any visit from a Member of Parliament to inquire into the conditions. What was there to hide? What was there unfair in a Member going to inquire first-hand for the information? Instead of that, the Government refused to give us that access, because they know that, if once we got in touch with those men, information would come to our hands that would make it unpleasant for the Government in a British House of Commons. This Government is in a very peculiar position. Take what has happened. Men are in Mountjoy prison. They might be moved to-morrow, and, in the course of being moved from town to town, it might be that, in the disturbed state of Ireland, these men might be shot. They might be shot quite innocently. It might be that the soldiers on guard were the worse for liquor. It might be that they were angry. There might be a hundred and one pretexts. Everyone knows that, in the course of war, when tempers are roused, when feeling is high, how easy it is for shooting to take place, and for men to lose their lives. It would not be so bad if those men had been convicted of any crime. I have a list in my pocket of men who have been shot in Mountjoy prison, presumably for crime. It might happen with those men. British citizens, to-morrow, might be deprived of their lives through an act over which the Free State has no control. It might even be outside their particular jurisdiction.
Again, the duty of a Government ought to be to protect its citizens. The moment a Government hands over its citizens to another country, then it ceases to be a Government. It is your duty to look after those in your country, to protect every citizen within your country. If a man committed a crime here against Canada, before you would allow him to go outside your country you would have to make Canada prove that there was a case on the surface against that man. Even if I committed a crime in England against Scotland, the Scottish law is definite on the point, that before a man can be brought back to England he must appear before the magistrate and a case made out against the man. That applies to England and Scotland, and Scotland is a part of Britain, whie Ireland is a Free State outside the jurisdiction of Britain. If we insist upon that in regard to a State which is part of Britain, how much more ought we to insist upon it in regard to a country which is not part of it. It may be that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite will challenge the law on this point, though they are lacking the Lord Advocate for Scotland; but I can assure the House that I have gone into this question thoroughly to-day, and am satisfied that I am correct in this matter of law as between England and Scotland.
Might I also say I am not concerned so much for the legal aspect of the question? It may be that the Home Secretary will put it to us that this is legally correct. Even if this action were legally correct, it is no excuse for doing an action of this kind. I want to submit that there is a higher attitude than even legal correctness. I would sooner be legally wrong and right in common sense and justice than be right in a mere legal quibble. Again, I might raise the whole issue that here we are to-night discussing in the British House of Commons. I want to suggest further that this action has not been taken by the Irish Free State at all. This action has been taken largely by the British Government in the first instance approaching the Free State. They were afraid of things happening in this country. They had not the capacity to tackle the problem themselves. They had no case against these people, and they approached the Free State Government in order for the Free State Government to come back to them. That is the way this thing was
done. I feel the whole thing we are being faced with is a set of circumstances that no Government worthy of the name would have allowed to occur. Might I further submit that every one of the persons arrested belongs to the working classes? If there had been a hundred landlords, or a hundred financiers, or a hundred legal luminaries, they never would have been arrested and treated in this fashion. They were arrested merely because they are working people, and deported because the Government thought these people would not have the knowledge to defend themselves or have anybody to defend them. The whole question was discussed the other night—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The whole general question was discussed the other night, and, therefore, cannot be gone into now. I would remind the hon. Member that the only question before the House at this moment on the Motion for Adjournment is the consideration of whether or not the Government have lost control over these people.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I accept your ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. My point is this: Here we have the Free State responsible now for British subjects. Our country ought to be responsible for every British citizen. We evade our responsibility by handing over these people to another country. What would anyone think of a Government, who, by handing over 100 persons, were evading their responsibility; handing them over, say, to Canada or Australia, or to any other country? The whole thing is a makeshift policy. The Government have not had the courage to arrest these men or to charge them with any crime. They hauled them on the pretext they did. What I am most afraid of is that now they are in Ireland anything might happen to them. I am especially keen that nothing untoward should happen to them. If anything does happen to them while in Ireland, then the Government are raising a very serious problem for themselves. What immediately will occur if anything happens to these men while under the control of the Irish Fee State? The issue becomes at once not one between the Free State and the rebel party; you will see every Irishman in this country, whether he be a Free Stater or a rebel, thrown right into the arms of the rebels, and you will have the whole Irish trouble intensified 50
times. That is what the Government are doing. What is their object? If you had any case, why do not you bring the men back to our prisons? Surely they are safe enough? Are the warders not capable of looking after them and of guarding them, without handing them over to the tender mercies of another country? Is Barlinnie prison not safe enough? Has your capacity for government ceased to function that you have to hand over your functions to another State? Have you not really confidence in yourselves?
The truth of the matter is that you have handed these men over and you do not really know where they are at the moment. You tell us they are in Mount-joy Prison. When did you become so trustful of the Irish Government? I have heard hon. Members on the other side put questions to the hon. Gentleman and to the Chancellor of the Exchequer doubting the Irish Free State Government on some other occasions. Anyhow, now they have become extremely trustworthy, and you would believe them in anything they might say. Anything might break out. There might be civil war to-morrow in Dublin. Are these men to be kept in Dublin Prison? I have seen it. I was over there quite recently at the Irish Trade Union Congress. Every window was rifled with bullets. You cannot keep these men in that prison while, it may be, there is a riot taking place. You may have to move them to another part of the country. You place them under the same danger and the same disability. For my part I hope that this House whether it be Tory, Liberal or Labour— no matter what section of the House it is to which we may belong— will safeguard the interests of the individual. Let us not forget this, that Governments alter. You have not a continued lease of life. Other Governments will one day supplant you. The regulations you have made will furnish excuses to them; these may then be used with equal effect against you. Let me conclude by saying that the case is not a case built on justice.
I listened to the Attorney-General and the Home Secretary trying to defend this action. Never have I heard the Home Secretary or the Attorney-General defend a case with so much weakness as they have shown in this particular instance. Undoubtedly, there can have been nothing of a similar kind to defend in this House
before, when we consider that even during the War we should have shrunk and protested if the Germans had handed over our prisoners of war to another State. The House would have protested, but here we are handing over our own citizens to another State. I conclude by saying that if this kind of thing is carried on— I want to be quite frank— if you can break constitutions, so can I. No constitution in this House will keep me from assisting those citizens in any way when I desire to assist them. If you can break laws, or bring up legal quibbles, then I am going to use all the resources I have to assist these men to go back to their wives and. families, and, at least, to be given a fair and right trial, and not to be condemned before even the decencies of justice are observed. I say, frankly, that if that is not granted, then I shall reserve to myself my right to assist these men in any way, constitutionally or unconstitutionally, to regain the liberty they have a right to possess.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I beg to second the Motion.
The reason for this Motion is to call attention to the neglect of the Government to retain control over the conditions under which the persons recently deported to Ireland are interned. As you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, very rightly said, this Motion ties us down to a very narrow point, and I hope to keep within it. Unlike the hon. Member who has just sat down, the case to which I want to refer is not that of an ordinary workman, but of a man in a large way of business. He is an employer of labour and, so far as I know, he is not connected with the Labour party. I hope that may appeal to hon. Members on the other side. I raised this issue with the Home Secretary in a question this afternoon. He was good enough to ask me to send on details. I very much prefer giving details to the House of Commons and to the country at large, because it is very essential that the people should know exactly what the Government have done in this connection. If the House will bear with me for a few moments I will put my case in this way. The man of whom I am speaking resided in Manchester. True, he was against the Treaty with Ireland, but since the Treaty was ratified by the Irish people he has never uttered a word in public nor, so far as I know, has done anything at all to jeopar-
dise the welfare of the Free State in Ireland. He was arrested. I have always understood that when a man was arrested, his wife and family were told where the police were taking him. Further, I always understood that even when a man was convicted by a Court, and was sent to prison— to any kind of prison—his family were entitled to know exactly where he had been taken. That is the case of a felon, who has been tried and convicted in a Court of law.
Here is the case of a man who is taken away, and his wife and children know nothing at all as to where he is taken. The wife went to a solicitor, and the solicitor wrote, last Tuesday, to the Home Secretary, requesting the Home Office to send a communication to the man at the place where he was interned. That was last Tuesday, and the wife received a telegram from the- man from Mountjoy Prison on Saturday afternoon last. The telegram was sent off at about 2.30, and stated that he had not received a word, either from the lawyer or from his wife. I think I have, so far, kept within the terms of the Motion before the House. What I want to plead for is, that this man, like all other citizens, is entitled to the amenities which the ordinary criminal gets. At any rate, he is entitled to get in touch by correspondence with his solicitor. The Home Office told the solicitor in this case that they were sending the communication at once to the man in Ireland. Surely, if the Home Office received this communication from the solicitor on Wednesday, the man ought to have had it on Friday, at the latest, but he had not received it on Saturday. I am sure hon. Members on the other side, whatever prejudices they may have in regard to these men who have been agitating in England against the Irish Free State, cannot but have sympathy with their wives and children. I feel that no man in the House, whatever position he may occupy, can permit a state of things to exist where the husband and father is kept for a whole week, and the wife and children cannot get access to him by correspondence. I claim, on human grounds, that something ought to be done in this case.
I wish to ask the Home Secretary if it is possible for a case like this to go before the Tribunal he has set up, before the man's solicitor has a chance of
preparing his case? It is suggested, in the representations I have received, that the appeal of this man may come forward before his solicitor can get in touch with him through correspondence. That is practically the whole of my case, except to say this. I am convinced of one thing, that there is hardly a lawyer in this land who could stand up and say that the action of the Government in dealing with these men was right. Not only have they arrested them, but they have been callous to their families since they have been arrested. I trust that this Motion will gain the support of the House. There are great principles at stake. I can think of a day coming when there will be another Government on that side of the House. If I happen to be a supporter of that Government, I shall be prepared to stand up, at any time, and to argue for fair play for the biggest criminal in the land until he is tried. I will argue for liberty of the subject irrespective of party politics. This House has a great duty to perform. It should see to it that a man is not condemned, at any rate, until he has been tried. That, in short, is the case we make out to-night.

Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: I must at once make the confession that I intervene in this Debate with the very greatest reluctance. This question has been raised several times by my hon. Friends, but until to-day I have never uttered a word upon it, and I would willingly have continued in that course. Owing, however, to the circumstances, my own strong feelings will no longer permit me to do so. As the House knows, I am the only representative here of the Irish Nationalists. There are a number of my countrymen above the Gangway who are, I am sure, just as keen to safeguard their interests as I am myself, and I welcome their coming to this House, not only for themselves, but because it is a very eloquent sign of the spirit of toleration and of indifference to creed and nationality in the country from which they come: but in a more especial sense, perhaps, than they do, I, as an Irish Nationalist, represent, not only my own constituency, but the large body, measured, not by small numbers, but by hundreds of thousands—I believe I may say altogether that there are upwards of 2,000,000 of people of the Irish race within the shores
of Great Britain. I feel, therefore, that I have a special responsibility to them, and that, if their liberties are attacked, I, as their representative, have a right to defend them, and I should be failing in my duty as their representative, and, to a certain extent, as their spokesman, if I did not make as hard a fight for them, or even a harder fight, than I should in the case of other fellow-citizens of mine, whether English. Scotch or Welsh.
The reason for my delay and my reluctance in rising is that I have no sympathy with those who are making war on the Free State Government in Ireland. If those gentlemen have complaints to make of the particular form of Government which now exists in Ireland, they can do so by exercising their privileges as citizens and by the ballot. More than that, as one who has resided in England for more than half a century, I have a strong resentment at the idea that my own people in this country should be brought up in fierce antagonism to their British fellow-citizens, with whom they have no quarrel whatever; and that these men should, perhaps, be threatened in their employment, or threatened in any other ways—that these millions of my people living in this country should be threatened by this country being made the point of departure, the headquarters, for attack by violence, by ammunition, by guns, upon the Government of Ireland, is, I think, intolerable. Knowing the misrepresentation that there is with regard to what any man says in public life, and more especially in the case of an Irish politician, with enemies all around him among his own people, I have abstained: but I can do so no longer.
When I went down to Liverpool last week to visit my constituents at the festival of the national holiday, I found that some of the people who were to have taken part in it were among those who had been sent over to Ireland by the Home Secretary. The first I heard of this matter was last Sunday week, when a young man came to me, with the priest of his parish and a friend of mine living in the same parish, and told me his story, and it so shocked and surprised me that I could not believe my ears. At a quarter-past one in the morning a couple of men appeared at the house, and, I will not say dragged out of bed, because they acted as
civilly as their instructions would allow, but they insisted that a young woman, in not a particularly good state of health, should get out of bed and be brought into the cold night air, and be taken away by police officers; and then she disappeared without leaving any trace. The first reflection that came to my mind was. what is the matter with Irishmen? They do not seem to have the ordinary rights and liberties that British subjects have, wherever they may be. As men of the same race as myself who sit on these benches know, there are groups of Irishmen and Irishwomen in this country as ardent in their devotion to Ireland as any Irish people born in Ireland can be, but they were born in this country; their fathers, and in some cases even their grandfathers, were born in this country. Has it come to this, that, because I have some Irish blood in my veins through my remote ancestors, I stand on a lower level with regard to the guardianship of my liberties within the shores of England than a man who had a French father, or a German father, or an Italian father, or a Turkish father? That is an intolerable position against which I feel bound to protest.
My right hon. and learned Friend—if he will allow me so to call him—the Attorney-General, who always conducts all his controversies not only with the greatest skill but with the greatest courtesy, declares that this is perfectly legal. I am not in a position to discuss the legality of the matter with him. He is one of the greatest lawyers of his day; I do not know anything about law. But even if he can prove to me by a thousand text-books that it is within the law, it does not change my conviction that it is a gross abuse and an outrage upon men and women of Irish blood, which neither he nor any other man in the world would dare to inflict upon people of any other nation. The circumstances have been set forth, and one of the main reasons for our objection is set forth by the Motion of my hon. Friend. I have seen assassins whose extradition was demanded, men with blood upon their hands, foul, terrible, horrible assassins. The Government of France, or the Government of Germany, or the Government of the United States, has demanded their extradition. What did the Home Secretary do about them? However foul the charge against them, and however great the probability of their
blood-guiltiness, he had to go through the due process of the law; and we have come to this, that the French assassin, or the German assassin, or the Italian assassin, has more guardianship for his liberties than has a man born in Ireland; or because he happens to be born of the Irish race and to have Irish blood in his veins, he is deported—how, and where? As to how, these poor people, delicate women, were dragged out of their beds in the middle of the night and sent—where? —we do not know. To what conditions? We do not know.
I am not going to criticise the present Government of Ireland. I have never said one word since the Irish people declared for them instead of for the party to which I belong. I have my opinions, and they have undergone no change, as to the unwisdom of Ireland in doing so, but I accept the verdict of my nation, and, therefore, I have never said a single word that might in the least degree embarrass or weaken the position of these men in their terribly difficult task. But they are fighting a very bitter civil war. They have had—I do not criticise them for doing so; it is not my policy and I am not responsible for it—they have had to execute many men, I think 67 altogether, and they have had to inflict detention upon many thousands of others. They have felt it their duty, owing to the number of escapes, or the possibility of escapes, to impose upon these men very hard restrictions—harder than would be imposed upon them if they were in English gaols. I want to know, as the Motion demands, what security has been given to see that under the stress of the fierce passions of civil war in Ireland these men will get the treatment which, thank God, amid all our worst conflicts in this country, it is the common doctrine of every party to give to every man until by due process of law he has been found guilty.

Mr. GERSHOM STEWART: I rise because I think it would be unseemly on our part if we allowed the other side to do all the speaking. We think the Government have been perfectly right in what they have done and I cannot possibly understand all this fuss about the deportations. As one who has been associated with the Unionist cause, I very much appreciate the good-tempered speeches with which this has been put forward by the opposite side and I should like to congratulate the
Father of the House on the vigour of his denunciations, which we who have been here a long time know so well. This Motion appears to me to be practically a Vote of Censure upon the Free State Government. Speaking as one who did not believe in the separation of Ireland from England, I and a great many of my Unionist colleagues, feel more confidence in the Free State Government than the supporters of this Motion have. I can assure those hon. Members who are anxious about the safety of the people who have been deported that if the Government have the promise of the Governor-General of Ireland that these people will be interned only, and will not be proceeded against with the utmost rigour of the law, the Governor General will keep his word. We who knew him in the House for many years know that he is a man of courage and once he says a thing you can rely upon it Now we come to the legal aspect. I am sitting in Standing Committee A. In that Committee dealing with the rent account the energetic upholders of the law now sitting before me say that the law is sacroscant because they obtained some decision in a
certain court by a fluke—

Mr. HARDIE: On a point of Order. Is it in order to refer to a decision by Noble Lords in another place as a fluke?

9.0 P.M.

Mr. STEWART: I withdraw the word "fluke." I will say an unfortunate decision. Now they have a decision as to these deportations which has been decided to be legal, they seem to be doing all they can to upset it. Their action is difficult to understand. Civil war of the deadliest character is going on in Ireland and if the Home Secretary has got, however he got it, information that there was a danger of that war being carried into this country, he would have been failing in his duty as the chief guardian of public security if he had failed to avail himself of it. I cannot follow this theory which has. been laid down that it is a very dreadful thing to be deported to Ireland, especially for people with Irish blood in them who believe England is the last country in the world to live in. I should also like to ask hon. Members opposite, who are so keen about these relatively few people under discussion, how is it we never heard a' word from them when about four or five
hundred people were interned in Ulster by the Ulster Government. [HON. MEMBERS; "They were not lifted out of this country."] They were lifted out of their houses and homes. They had an opportunity, the same as those now arrested, of appealing to a Committee. When I saw them they had been there for several months and not one had availed himself of this privilege of having his case tried. It rather led one to suppose that those who interned them knew a good deal about them that those interned did not wish to have explained, or that they were happy to be there out of the hurly burly. I dare say that will apply to some of those who are interned now. It is now put forward that these people are not British, but Irish citizens. There is no such thing as an Irish, English, Scottish or even a Welsh citizen. There is a British citizen and no other. It is laid down in the last Home Rule. Act that the Irish Government has the power now, if it likes, after a certain number of years' residence in Ireland, to grant certificates to foreigners not of Irish, but of British citizenship, and they become the same as we are. I think the plea falls to the ground that people, because they happen to be resident in England, have some particular claim to English citizenship. These people have been mixing themselves up in the affairs of Ireland, and the Home Secretary was perfectly right to hand them over to the authorities in that country, especially in view of the fact that they have the right of appeal to this Committee which he is setting up, which is composed of men of the highest legal knowledge and the highest character. It is all nonsense to say the Home Secretary should have shut his eyes and done nothing when he got this information. I believe the Home Secretary to be an honest English gentleman, and when a man like that gives his word I do not quibble about it. He has told us he had received information about the possibility of certain things arising in this country.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I must direct the hon. Member's attention to the words of the Motion upon which the Adjournment has been moved. The question of the legality of the deportation does not arise.

Mr. STEWART: You may have plenty of information on which you can rely, though you may not be able to prove it because your witnesses may be terrorised. If he thought these people were dangerous, he was quite right to get rid of them, and it is far better to have them deported a day or two too early than a day or two too late. I myself have seen things happen in this country. I have seen stacks burning in my constituency, and £1,000,000 worth of cotton was burnt in one night in Liverpool.

Mr. MacNEILL WEIR: Is this in order?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I have pointed out to the hon. Member that the legality of the deportation does not arise. The only question at issue is whether the Government have still complete control over these deported people.

Mr. STEWART: Perhaps my enthusiasm about the matter has led me away. I think the Home Secretary has got control of these men. You have the promise of the Governor-General of Ireland that they will not be executed or anything of that sort. Then we have the promise of the Home Secretary that they shall be produced before the Committee he is setting up. It seems to me, therefore, that there is not a great deal to complain about. So far from criticising the Home Secretary for what he has done, as a citizen I thank him very much for removing disturbing elements out of the country.

Mr. MORRIS: As I sum up the Resolution which has been so ably moved, I think it resolves itself into one question—under whose jurisdiction and under whose control are these men and women at the present time? One cannot really deal with that question and the points that arise under it without going back for a moment to what took place in this House a week ago. I do not propose to trespass outside the terms of the Resolution, but I should like to say that I do not suppose there were many hon. Members who could not help feeling, when the Home Secretary made his statement to the House a week ago, that the circumstances under which he was placed, from the information that had come to his knowledge, were such that he was entitled to call upon this House for the strongest possible support in what he did. When, in addition to that, he was
fortified by the opinion of the learned Attorney-General, that what he was doing was within the four corners of the Regulation, I felt, and I think some of those who sit with me on these benches felt, that it was our duty to support the Government when the Resolution was moved.
When the hon. Member for Woolwich West (Sir Kingsley Wood) expressed the grave misgiving and apprehension which he felt, in a very temperate and very moderate speech, although he himself at that time was supporting the Government in what they were doing, he pointed out that an action of that kind might lead to difficulties in the future, and that matters might arise for discussion in this House because of the action which was taken by the Secretary of State. From what I have heard this evening, the fact that these men and women are interned at the present time in Mountjoy Prison, leads one to inquire—and I hope that the Minister who is going to reply, possibly the Attorney-General, will give us some answer and some reason —why it is that these men and women have in fact been interned in Ireland and in whose custody they are at the present time. One can take, and I think one can take rightly and fairly, three alternatives. It may very well be that the Irish Free State have given to the Government of this country premises where they may intern these men and women and at the same time keep control over their persons by having them in the custody of servants of this country, namely, by sending over with them police constables or soldiers or custodians of that kind, thereby having guardianship over them, although keeping them in Ireland. That seems unlikely, and I do not think that that has been done.
On the other hand, it may be this alternative, that the Government of this country have arranged with the Free State Government that their officers shall temporarily become the servants of the Government of this country, and that the men and women, interned as they are in Ireland, shall be kept under the control of people in the service of the Free State Government temporarily loaned to the Government of this country. That, again, does not seem likely. The House is at the present time in the dark as to which, if either, of these two alternatives has
been adopted. The third and last alternative must be this, that these men and women who could have been interned in this country, but are now, as we are led to believe, interned in the Irish Free State, have been handed over to the Government of the Irish Free State and are interned in Ireland by them under the custody and under the control of the Irish Free State. If that third alternative be the real one, and the right one—and I ask the Minister who replies to give us some information upon that point—then this House is entitled to ask, and is entitled to know, what is the exact arrangement that has been made between His Majesty's Government and the Government of the Irish Free State.
The whole thing will depend upon the answer to that question, because this House is entitled to know what sort of control it is that the right hon. Gentleman has over these men and women, when it is that he can get them back to this country, if he can get them back to this country, and what arrangement he has made for the purpose of getting them back to this country, should he desire to have them back. I should like, but I think it might be out of order, to refer to one short passage in Regulation 14B, in regard to the actual wording of the Regulation. As I read it, it says:
The Secretary of State may by Order require that person forthwith"—
"that person," of course, includes these 100 men and women who have, been arrested and interned—
to be interned in such place as may be specified in the Order.
I should like to know from the Secretary of State if at the time when he made his Order he specified the place, or whether he only specified it generally as the Southern part of Ireland. I should have thought that that internment meant in ternment by the Secretary of State him self, and internment over which he, had custody and control. It may be that in handing these men and women over to the custody and control of the Irish Free State—

Sir J. BUTCHER: On a point of Order. Does not this really relate to the question of legality?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I have listened carefully to the hon. and learned Member, and I think he is in order.

Mr. MORRIS: If it be that the handing over of these men and women to the Irish Free State comes under the third of the alternatives which I have named, I should like to know, and I think the House would like to know, what arrangements were made to make that internment, which the Secretary of State originally had put into force, still his internment, although in effect these men and women are within the bounds of the jurisdiction of the Irish Free State.

Mr. MAXTON: I cannot claim that I take as wide and as deep a view of this matter as those hon. Members who have spoken. I have looked carefully into the matter not so much as a Member of this House, but as one who has been detained in somewhat similar circumstances to the circumstances under which these men and women are detained now. Knowing just exactly the very great difficulties of that position, and knowing how very difficult it is for an innocent man to take the necessary steps to prove his innocence, I have endeavoured on every occasion possible to try to be assured that these men detained in Ireland have the fullest opportunity for establishing their innocence. We were told to-day that we still had full freedom of access and full control over the lives and liberties of these men. I started at Question time on Thursday to endeavour to get access to them in their place of internment in Ireland. I am still without anything like a reasonable promise. That was four days ago. Is that reasonable access or reasonable control over the lives and liberties of these men?
I regard it as a personal affront and an affront to this House to be told that I have no more right to see these men than ordinary visitors to the prison. As a Member of this House I have to take my share of the responsibility for the detention of these men, and yet I am told that my only right of access to them is under the ordinary prison Regulations. When I ask what these ordinary prison Regulations are governing the admission of friends to visit persons interned I discover that neither the Home Office nor the Scottish Office can produce one copy of these Regulations. They do not know what the conditions are. I know that there was no special desire on the part either of the Home Office or the Scottish
Office that I should go there. It was indicated to be that they were somewhat alarmed for my personal safety should I go there. I am glad to find that anxiety among the members of the Government. I appreciate it. It touches me.
The interesting point about it is that if the British Government cannot be sure of the personal safety of a Member of Parliament, who presumably is friendly to the Free State, how can it be so terribly certain of the safety of the internees of the Free State who have been carried over there? [HON. MEMBERS: "What about Wilson 1"] That is said to justify us in doing something which everybody on that side realises is unjustifiable. I know that Sir Henry Wilson was shot in this city, but is it because the Home Secretary will be shot that this has taken place, because if it is to protect our Government it is placing Great Britain and the Home Office and the police service of this country, not to mention our military forces, on a very low level indeed, if we have to get the Irish Free State to withdraw Irish citizens and British citizens to protect our Cabinet Ministers and to protect prominent individuals in this country." If we have got to run to the Irish Free State and say, "Take away this batch of our citizens in order that our prominent citizens may be safe," look at the position we are in. Suppose that the President of the Irish Free State said to the Home Secretary, "I have reason to believe that the right hon. Member for the City of London (Sir F.Banbury) and the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs are not friendly to the Irish Free State Government, that they are plotting against the Free State Government and as evidence of that I produce certain letters written by the right hon. Gentleman to the Under-Secretary "—I am assuming that such letters had been written and they contain phrases that were very wild and desperate—would we say, "Yes, there is sufficient evidence on the subject to justify us in handing these two men to the Irish Free State"?

Sir F. BANBURY: I have written no letters to the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. If I had. I should certainly have said that I do not much care about the Irish Free State. I do not understand hon. Members opposite taking that line.

Mr. MAXTON: The right hon. Member for the City of London knows that I am only suggesting a hypothetical case, but I am sure that if I went round all the strong supporters of the Die Hard section, I could light upon two persons to whom my description would admittedly apply.

Sir J. BUTCHER: Name.

Mr. MAXTON: And I believe that you are one of them.

Sir J. BUTCHER: If it is any relief to the feelings of the hon. Gentleman to know that I have not written any letters of the sort, and that I am not, as he put it, "one of them," whatever that is, I have much pleasure in giving him that assurance, and I hope that he will be very much the happier for it.

Mr. MAXTON: I am sorry that I am stopped giving examples from the other side and that the Debate will not be allowed to proceed. Again, I must assure the hon. Gentleman that I am only giving a hypothetical case, but that could well happen, and what control have we, having once handed them out without any decent evidence, because the few letters that were read out by the Home Secretary, if he will excuse my saying so, seemed to be absolute piffle. One of them was obviously the attempt of some hard-up individual to raise the wind. I am very anxious to know from the Home Secretary how that evidence was collected? Was it the Irish Free State that collected the evidence in this country?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member and the House will remember that it has been decided that we cannot go into these proceedings from the point of view of their legality.

Mr. MAXTON: There is not even a primâ-facie case. The method of the collection of the evidence, not whether the action was legal or not, has some bearing on the question of whether we have a right throughout the whole business to control over the rights and liberties of these men. If the evidence was collected by the Free State in this country, that seems to indicate that the detectives of the Free State are patrolling our great cities unknown to us. If the evidence was collected here by our police, what was it collected for and by whose authority was it transmitted to the Irish Free State?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I must ask the hon. Member to keep to the question. A Motion for Adjournment must be on a definite point, and it would not be right for an hon. Member, having obtained the leave of the House to move the Adjournment on a particular question, to leave that question and discuss another.

Mr. MAXTON: I accept that, and I believed I was within the question at issue, but I will try to narrow it down to some extent. I am assured that up to date the legal adviser of the Glasgow deportees has not been able to secure access to these prisoners, and that the only thing he has to go upon to assume that he will have access to them is a reply to a question in this House. Supposing there were among these men some individual who, far from being a rebel against the Irish Free State from the Sinn Fein point of view, happened to be a rebel from the Ulster point of view. That, I assure the House, is not an impossible thing, because in the wholesale swoop, which included myself, there was in the next cell to me in the Duke Street prison a member of one of the local Unionist associations in the city of Glasgow. Two days afterwards they had to release him, but he had to undergo all the inconvenience and indignity of that arrest. Supposing there were one of these men of whom I have spoken, and that the Home Secretary said to the Irish Free State, "We want that man back," and the Irish Free State said, "No. We have not got him on the count on which we. wanted him, but we have got him on a good enough count to justify us in holding him"; is this nation then in the positon of having to go in with an army corps and army brigade to bring that man home, because as far as I can see we have absolutely no other power, should the Irish Free State say "No" on such a request from us.
I said at the outset that I raised this point purely from the point of view of one who himself has suffered something of this sort. The particular case in which I am interested is that of a man in my own constituency, a man whom, I have it on good authority, was a very quiet, law-abiding citizen, who has not been associated with the extreme Irish movement, who has left behind him a wife and two children absolutely unprovided for. I am perfectly certain that man has not been able to establish com-
munication with his wife and family, and among all the tortures that one suffers when shut up in one of these places, the greatest of all is not to know what is happening to those you have left behind, particularly when you know that your withdrawal from the home has left them absolutely unprovided for.
It is all very well to sign an Order declaring the arrest of 110 people, taking them out of their homes and clearing them away, but you see it from a very different point of view when you are one of the 110. You feel then how very, very cruel the step may be. Not one of the hon. Members opposite, nor the Home Secretary himself, has considered it from the victim's point of view. It is an administrative act, the signing of a paper, but at the other end it is brimful of tragedy and pathos. We have seen it. We have seen children left weeping in the homes when the father was taken away, clinging to their mother's skirt, asking where the father has gone to, and the mother cannot tell because she does not know. And all this on the most flimsy evidence. The wife of this man I am talking about cannot provide food for the children when the man is away, and how can she cross the Irish Sea and visit him in Mountjoy Gaol? How is he to be able to make provision for them? I am appealing to the Home Secretary. I am not raising the Constitutional question at all. Presumably, it can be justified, that whenever a Government feels a need for it all the old-established precedents and customs of the nation may be set aside. That seems to be the attitude of the Government in power. [HON. MEMBERS: "We will remember this when our turn comes."] No, I am a partisan, I am a keen fighter of my enemies, but I am hanged if I will get down into the gutter to fight them. I will fight them by clean means. If the law is not good enough to allow me to hang them, I would improve the law to do it, but I would not appeal to the forces of another country to aid me in handling the people who gave me trouble. I am appealing to the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister—some of these men are from his own constituency—to admit that a great big mistake has been made. There is possibly in the whole of that bunch one man who was really a source of danger to the Irish Free State. There was one man, and all the
people who said "Good-morning" to him or wrote a letter to him must be gathered into the wide net and thrown across the sea to Ireland and left there without you being able to do anything on their behalf at all. It would be a big thing and a helpful this in this country and on the other side if the Government here were big enough to admit a mistake and restore these people to their homes.

Sir LAMING WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The hon. Member who has just spoken reminded us that the Members of the House of Commons have a great responsibility in this matter, and I am not inclined to quarrel with him in that respect. We have a great responsibility. The liberty of the subject is precious to us, and we have the obligation upon us to examine such a set of circumstances as exist at the moment, and to see whether the executive powers in the hands of the Government have been properly carried out. I am therefore glad that this Debate has come on twice within the last fortnight upon such an important question. To-night the question of legality is entirely ruled out. I understand the Motion is limited to one of condemnation of the Government in dealing with these deportees in the way in which they have dealt with them. Feeling the responsibility of Members of Parliament, I would ask the House to consider for a moment the motive which has induced the Home Secretary to take the course he has taken. He has done it in order to protect the Free State from men whom he believed are plotting or helping in plotting against the Free State. On that ground I welcome his action. I have not always been at one with some of my colleagues on the matter of the Free State. I have taken a responsibility with others, with the House of Commons, indeed, in setting up or helping to set up the Free State as a Government, and I will take any measure within the law—legality is not now in question—to see that plots and conspiracies are not hatched in this country against the Free State, if by any means we can prevent them. That is the motive. Does any hon. Member quarrel with the motive that has governed the Home Secretary? Consider what is his position. If we have a responsibility, he has a still greater responsibility, because it is this House which has given him a power which hon. Members say is illegal. The
complaint is that these men have been deported without trial [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"]

Mr. MACLEAN: The question that is being debated is not deportation without trial, but that these people have been taken away and placed where this Government has no control over them.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: That is not a point of Order, unless Mr. Deputy-Speaker rules it so. It may be an argument.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: As a matter of fact the discretion of the Government in deporting these people is not in dispute to-night. The question under discussion is whether His Majesty's Government has or has not lost control over these people.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I will confine myself within that argument. If I could indicate what I was about to say, you would be able to state whether I was in order. I was about to point out that these men were deported under powers that were given by this House. I intended then to argue whether or not they ought to have been sent to Ireland, which I understand is the kernel of this Motion. In order to get to that position I have to make good the first position, and unless you say that I am out of order in addressing these few words to the House on that point I propose to proceed.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Of course, it would be in order to lead up to the point whether the Government have now control or not.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: When hon. Members complain that the Home Secretary has exercised these powers, which include the power to deport to Ireland, they must remember that we share the responsibility with the Home Secretary, because we have granted, or the last House of Commons granted, these powers. Having given the power to the Home Secretary, it is not as if the Home Secretary were without that power You have thrown upon him a greater responsibility, and if he were to neglect the use of powers which this House has given him you would be entitled to arraign him for negligence. Whether or not we ought to have given these powers to the executive Government, and whether or not we ought now to take them away, are other questions which we can debate on a suitable occasion, but do not let us make
any mistake, the Home Secretary has those powers, and in certain cases, if there is a primâ-facie case against a man, we should be entitled to arraign the Home Secretary if he did not use the powers. Having made that point good, let me take the next point, which is whether or not the Home Secretary ought to have deported them and deported them to Ireland, and whether he ought to have detained them in some gaol in this country. My hon. Friend the Member for the Scotland Division (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) claimed that this was an insult and an attack upon his compatriots and upon anyone with Irish blood. No, no! Surely, that is a gross exaggeration. Was this an indiscriminate attack on the two millions whom my hon. Friend represents in this House? It was an attack, if attack at all, upon people against whom there was a primâ-facie case.

Mr. J. JONES: How do you know?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Because the Home Secretary, with all the responsibility that is his and speaking for the Government, has said that he went into each individual case before he signed the Order, and because he was satisfied that there was a primâ-facie case. I quite understand that hon. Members opposite are not prepared to accept that, but I know the Home Secretary a great deal better than they do, and I do accept it. I do not ask hon. Members to accept it, nor are the deportees asked to accept it. A tribunal or committee has been set up to which they can go, and by which each case could be investigated, and if the primâ-facie case turned out an investigation to be bad, they can get their liberty again. But do not forget that the Home Secretary had the responsibility of the powers which we have placed in his hands. It is for us to consider, on some suitable opportunity, whether those powers are powers which ought to be invested in any executive Government. Let me take the last point. Have we or have we not lost control of these deportees? I confess that there I think the Opposition is on much stronger ground. [HON. MEMBERS: "That is the only point!"] It is not quite the only point. Upon what are we basing ourselves? It seems to me to be this: We have an undertaking from the Free State Government that no form of action except internment under
the internment order, will be taken against any of these persons without communication with this Government. Are we or are we not prepared to accept that undertaking by the Free State Government? The Home Secretary informed the House that we have got that undertaking.

Mr. J. JONES: On a point of Order. The Home Secretary, in reply to a question, also said that there was no guarantee that the people would be brought to trial.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I am sorry I did not hear the hon. Member's interruption. The Home Secretary said, as I thought, quite definitely that he had an undertaking by the Free State that no form of action would be taken against any one of the deportees without the Free State first communicating with this Government. I say to those who are supporting this Motion, are you prepared to accept the undertaking of the Free State, or are you not? I am prepared to do so. If you are prepared to accept it, your case falls; you cannot maintain your case against the Government and at the same time say that you are prepared to accept the undertaking of the Free State. You have either to repudiate the Free State's undertaking or not. Some of my Friends on this side would be quite willing to repudiate it, but it seems strange that repudiation should come from the other side of the House. It is very strange that it should come from that side of the House. I am going to support the Government to-night. [HON. MEMBEHS: "Only to-night?"] Well, I give no pledges beyond that. I am going to support the Government to-night for this reason, that we have put the Home Secretary in a position of very special responsibility. We have cast upon him a most unpleasant duty and a very dangerous power. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Yes, a very dangerous power, but it is we who have done it, and do not forget that. He is responsible for his exercise of that power, and I see nothing in the action he has taken which prevents me from supporting him this evening.

. THOMAS: The right hon. Gentle-map who has just spoken emphasised that for to-night at least he is going to sup-
port the Government, and I am sure they will not only note that announcement with satisfaction, but will also take note of the fact that he limits his support exclusively to to-night. I wish to make some observations on the sort of defence which is put up against this Motion. The hon. Member for Wirral (Mr. Gershom Stewart) said it was a Vote of Censure on the Free State Government. That is exactly what is not intended. [HON. MEMBERS: "It is what you are doing!"] No, unfortunately it is what hon. Members on the other side are doing. Incidentally, no one on this side of the House should be called upon to apologise for our support of the Free State Government. We have given clear indication that we not only wish them well, but desire to do nothing that would hamper or injure them. The task which faces us to-night, however, is not concerned with the action of the Free State Government, but with the action of our own Government. That action consisted, first, of deporting people—illegally according to our opinion. That unfortunately cannot be discussed at this stage. Secondly, there is the fact that the Government, having deported them, have, in our judgment, lost complete control over them. This afternoon the Home Secretary read out the conditions governing the detention of these people, and mentioned certain rules and regulations by which they could obtain legal advice and assistance. A supplementary question was put to him, but he did not indicate that any of these people were aware of these conditions. The question was directly put to him, "Do the prisoners themselves know of these regulations, and have they been told how they are to avail of them?" The answer was that the Home Secretary was not certain. Therefore we are entitled to suggest that these regulations are useless so far as the prisoners are concerned, and that they have not been made acquainted with them. The next point I wish to make is: what control has the Government here over the prisoners? We all know that as far as Mountjoy Prison is concerned, the Free State Government do not even control it themselves. Let us assume that these prisoners in Mountjoy Prison at the present moment are captured by the Irregulars. Let us assume there is a raid on the prison with that result. Who then is responsible for these men? They have been handed over by our own
Government. The Free State Government; has given certain guarantees, but the Free State Government may perhaps prove themselves unable—

Sir FREDERICK BANBURY: Hear, hear!

Mr. THOMAS: That proves that, so far as the right hon. Baronet is concerned, he would like to see that happen, but if that is his view and the view of those who support his policy, what becomes of the action of our Government in the matter? The Motion we are debating states that the Government have lost control. The point upon which we are challenging the Government is, that the Free State Government cannot give a guarantee, and if, in these circumstances, they should fail, then I ask the Prime Minister, what is his view and what is his position with regard to his own constituents? Some of his own constituents are prisoners. He, as the head of the Government, has said I am directly responsible. He has handed them over to the Free State Government, and supposing it has been unable, itself, to control the situation, these poor, unfortunate constituents of his might be shot—might be dealt with in a thousand and one different ways—and yet this House of Commons is absolutely unable to interfere. The right hon. Gentleman who spoke, last said the authority, vested in the Home Secretary, was given by the House of Commons. That is contrary to the facts. As a matter of fact, it was an emergency Regulation, never intended for cases of this kind, and no House of Commons could be held responsible for it.

Mr. SPEAKER: That is a point which might have been raised last Monday, but we must not deal with that question in the present Debate.

Mr. THOMAS: I admit that, Mr. Speaker, but the right hon. Gentleman who spoke last urged that this House of Commons had given certain powers to the Home Secretary and based the whole of his case on that ground. I am replying to him by saying that, as far as we are concerned, we do not accept that responsibility, and I have indicated the way in which it was brought about. At all events, leaving that point aside, I content myself by urging the Government not to make the mistake of treating this Motion as a Vote of Censure on the Irish
Government. If the Irish Government is responsible, or if the British Government is responsible, it does not absolve this House of Commons from its responsibility. Regardless of the point of view of the individual, regardless or religion or creed, as citizens we believe that these men are entitled to the protection of the law of the land and that the Government has failed in their obligation to secure them that protection.

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Bridge-man): Before I make any general reply to the Debate which we have had this evening, I should like to answer one question that was asked mo by the hon. Member who seconded the Motion, who complained that he had sent a letter from some legal gentlemen about one of the internees at Mountjoy Prison, and that no action had been taken. The letter was sent to Dublin by the Home Office the same day that it arrived at the Home Office from the hon. Member, and a letter was also written on the same day to the solicitors saying what had been done, so that I think at any rate the Home Office cannot be accused of any delay. [Interruption.] The whole point was that the Home Office had delayed in this matter.

Mr. SAKLATVALA: The letter has not reached its destination.

Mr. THOMAS: That was not my hon. Friend's complaint. He did not complain of the action of the Home Office. He complained that, so far as the communication reaching the individual was concerned, his information was that it had not reached the individual, and therefore that the British Government had lost control.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Whatever his complaint was, I understood it as I stated. Perhaps I misunderstood it, but what I should like to point out is that his letter was dealt with as quickly as it could be, and that the individual concerned cannot possibly suffer owing to any delay by the Home Office in the matter. A number of questions was also addressed to me by the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Mr. Morris), but I do-not think he was here at Question time. He was probably more advantageously engaged, but if he had been here he would have heard, I think, the answers to all those questions, which were given at some
length between a quarter to four and a quarter past. If there are any others that have not been answered, I hope I shall be able to reply to them in what I am about to say. I want, as far as I can, to follow the rulings that have been given from the Chair, and to keep within the scope of the Motion which has been moved, which is to call attention to the failure of the Government to retain control over the conditions under which the persons recently deported to Ireland are interned.
10.0 P.M.
Everybody who has spoken in favour of the Motion to-night has spoken as if the conditions in Ireland were absolutely normal and there were no disturbances at all existing there. The circumstances are anything but normal There are disturbances, there are outrages of the most disgraceful kind perpetually going on. They are aimed at the stability of the present Free State Government of Ireland, and I say that if the circumstances are exceptional, as they most certainly are, they require exceptional measures to deal with them, and the exceptional measures which were passed by this House to deal with them were the Restoration of Order in Ireland Act and the Regulations which were made under it. I say that when there was a dangerous conspiracy going on in this country against the Free State Government of Ireland, intended to facilitate the commission of crimes in Ireland, the circumstances were such that it would be. perfectly impossible for any Home Secretary, whether he came from the ranks of hon. Members opposite or from our own ranks, to have taken no action in the matter. A great deal has been said by the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) of the tragedy of the circumstances of the wife and children who are left behind when the man of the family is interned. I feel with him that in many cases that is a tragedy, where the circumstances are bad, but have any of the hon. Members who have attacked the Government to-night thought of the tragedy of those people whose parents have been murdered and whose property has been burned down by those for whom these men were acting in this country?

HON. MEMBERS: That is not proved.

Mr. BROAD: Is it justifiable for the Home Secretary—[HON. MEMBERS: "Sit down!"]

Mr. SPEAKER: Hon. Members must really listen to the reply of the Home Secretary.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: What I am saying is that hon. Members who have supported this Motion should think of the tragedy on both sides, and if I am right in thinking that these men are dangerous. I am right in taking a serious view of the situation—[Interruption]—and I am right in thinking of the tragedy which they might have committed if they had been, allowed to remain at large.

Mr. MAXTON: You should have made sure of getting the right men.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I want to point out that in my opinion the Government has not lost control, as is alleged in the terms of this Motion. I followed the action which was agreed upon by this House as necessary for the restoration of order in Ireland. I became aware, and so did the Irish Free State Government, of this state of affairs that was going on here, and after consultation they asked us to put in motion this Regulation, in order that these men might be interned and their activities curtailed.

Mr. WEIR: That is not the point at all.[HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"] On a point of Order—

Mr. SPEAKER: These are not points of Order.

Mr. WEIR: You have not heard it yet. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"]

Mr. SPEAKER: Hon. Members must listen to the reply. They may not agree with it, but they must listen.

Mr. WEIR: On a point of Order—

Mr. SPEAKER: It cannot be a point of Order to interrupt.

Mr. WEIR: Mr. Speaker—[HON.MEMBERS: "Sit down!"]

Mr. SPEAKER: I must ask the hon. Member to obey my ruling.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I have listened very carefully to everything that has been said in this Debate, and I do not think I am
asking too much if I ask for a fair hearing to what I am going to say, whether hon. Members agree with me or not.

Mr. MAXTON: It is not fair.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: What I say is—

Mr. REMER: Take your medicine!

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I have not got in yet, but—[HON. MEMBERS: "Name him!"]—I do not care a straw for you. You are—

Mr. SPEAKER: Hon. Members, I am afraid, on both sides of the House, are trying to provoke interruptions. Hon. Members must really observe silence, and hear the case for the Government.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I hope, Mr. Speaker, you will not accuse me of having attempted to provoke interruption.

Mr. SPEAKER: Certainly not. But there was some interruption from both sides which might provoke interruption.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The Government have been attacked on this matter and I am going to do my best to answer. I am held responsible for this, and I am endeavouring to show that I have followed a strictly legal and regular course. I am said to have lost control in every essential point over these, men and women who have been deported. As we cannot discuss to-night, as it has already been discussed, the legality of the action. I will confine myself entirely to the question of whether or not we have lost control. First of all, I should like to say that an Advisory Committee has been appointed, and that it was explained on the warrant which was issued when these people were arrested, that they could appeal to me to have their case represented before the Advisory Committee. The Free State have undertaken certain other things. First of all, that if other proceedings were desired by them against these deportees, they are only to be taken, not only after consultation, but after the consent has been received of the British Government. So that if anything were to happen to them beyond internment, it could not happen without the consent of the British Government.

Captain O'GRADY: As the result of raising the question in the House!

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The second undertaking given is that the internees should have every facility for a personal hearing before the Advisory Committee. The third is that if the Advisory Committee decide that any person should not have been deported he will be released—[HON. MEMBERS: "When? "]—and the fourth is that very reasonable opportunity will be afforded to the deportees to communicate with their friends for the purpose of procuring legal advice, and especially for the purpose of any representations they wish to make to the Advisory Committee, and freedom of access for this purpose will be allowed to the prisoners' legal advisers. I maintain that with those undertakings given to me by the Free State Government, we have a complete control over the position in which the internees are placed. But there is one point which has been dwelt upon by hon. Gentlemen who spoke from the benches opposite, and which I understood was going to be the subject of the Motion to-night by the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan). That was that he and some of his friends were not allowed to visit the deportees in Mountjoy Prison. That, I think, was the gravamen of his charge. I frankly admit that I did not ask the Free State Government to allow indiscriminate visits from friends to the men and women who were interned.

Mr. MAXTON rose—

HON. MEMBERS: Order, order!

Mr. SPEAKER: Does the hon. Member wish merely to ask a question of the Home Secretary?

Mr. MAXTON: I wish to ask a question concerning the privilege of the House. Is the Home Secretary not saying a very insulting thing to this House when he refers to a visit of a Member as indiscriminate?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I do not think the hon. Gentleman would have said that if he had had the experience I myself have had in this matter. I had a great friend in Wormwood Scrubs some years ago—

HON. MEMBERS: Bottomley?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: No, it was not—and I tried very hard to be allowed to see him. I appealed to the Home Secretary of the day to be allowed to go and visit this friend of mine that I had known
all my life, and I was told that the only chance I had was to go on one day—I think he was allowed to see somebody once in a month or in two months, I cannot remember which—and on these special days his wife always went to see him. But there happened to be one month in this time when she was unable to go, and I was allowed to go on that occasion.

Mr. BROAD: As his wife?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Not as his wife. Therefore, I think the hon. Gentleman will understand that in cases like this, whether they are prisoners who have been convicted or men who have been interned for the safety of the Free State in Ireland, it is necessary that the country which is concerned should make its own Regulations, and I say I did not, nor would I, ask them to make Regulations other than those which they wanted to make on this point.

Mr. MAXTON: Why did you fool me that you were? Is it fair?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I am quite ready to submit the application of anybody who want to see these people to the Free State Government, but I am not prepared to ask them to submit to us their Regulations, because I can trust them to make what I believe will be fair Regulations, and Regulations in the interests of the internees as far as it is compatible with the interests of the country. There have been points made in the Debate to-night both about Irish-born and British-born among these deportees, and one side has been accused of dealing unfairly with the Irish-born, and the other with dealing unfairly with the British-born. But really the point of where they were born does not affect the question if they were engaged in attempting to disturb the security of the Free State in Ireland. It would be futile for a Government when taking emergency measures, as these are, for the preservation of public law and public order to draw any distinction between a dangerous Irishman born on this side of the Channel and a dangerous Irishman born on the other side of the Channel. Our duty is to treat either of these people, if there is a primâ facie case against them, equally. We have only to think of the men who murdered Sir Henry Wilson.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Think of the men who murdered Jim Connolly.

Mr. SPEAKER: I am ready to hear the hon. Member presently, but I cannot see him if he keeps on with these interruptions.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Both of the men who murdered Sir Henry Wilson were born in this country, and therefore to say that because a man is born in this country he cannot be dangerous and must be treated in some different way is quite absurd.

Mr. MAXTON: But they were tried here.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I want to say this word in conclusion. I ask the House two questions. With regard to restoration of order in Ireland, first of all, is order restored or is it not

Mr. MACLEAN: On a point of Order. Are we discussing whether these men have passed out of the control of the Government, or are we discussing the whole question of disorder in Irleand and the control of this Government over Ireland?

Mr. SPEAKER: I have not heard a complete sentence in the speech of the Home. Secretary. He is well aware of the terms of the Motion, for he has read them out himself.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The first thing I ask is whether order has been restored. And nobody can say it has.

Mr. HARDIE: Is it in order to put a question? [HON. MEMBERS. "Sit down!"]

Mr. SPEAKER: You cannot have an answer and a question at the same time.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The second question is, do we wish to have order restored in Ireland. If we do, and if hon. Members opposite wish it—

Mr. HARDIE: I do.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Then I say it is our duty to trust the Free State Government, and to do what we can to help it. I ask the House to reject this Motion, on the ground that we have done our duty to the Free State, who have been loyal to us in keeping the Treaty up to now, and to whom it is our duty to be loyal in this matter.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I desire, at the outset, to intimate to the House that I occupy a unique position in this House, that is, I have been deported. I know what it is to be deported. I know what it is as a Scotsman, as a Briton, who had boasted all my life of the outstanding liberties which the citizens of our great country enjoy. With all those feelings pent up within my breast, I know what it is as a British subject to be deported, thrown out, rejected. At that time we were at war, and the Government of that time were panicky. They had reason. They were faced with the greatest military machine the world had ever seen, and the Government were to be excused. I have long ago forgiven them. I know what it is to see the children clinging around the mother, wanting to know why their father is being taken away in the middle of the night. [Laughter.] Now you see those soulless individuals, how they laugh—those men who are void of the most valuable thing in life, a fellow-feeling. You are not the men who matter to Britain, though you may think you are. You are ower the Border and awa—

Mr. SPEAKER: The House, I am sure, will be glad to hear the hon. Member, but will he please keep to the Motion?

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I am doing my best to keep to the Motion, Mr. Speaker, but I hear laughter, which is as the crackling of thorns—

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is far too easily distracted, and gets away from the Question. If he will always address me, and keep to the point, which is the Motion, he will not be led away.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: It is perfectly true, Sir, that I may be tempted away from the main point, but this is a subject upon which I feel very keenly. I appeal, even at this late hour, to hon. Members because of the heat that has been engendered—which I do not wish to add to—and the feeling on the matter; and I appeal to the Prime Minister, because I was wronged when I was deported. The Government eventually admitted it. I do not want this Government to be humbled in the same way. I do not want the fair name of Britain to be stained with the idea that our fellow-countrymen should be deported to another country. Such an idea is foreign to the British
character. That is what we were led to believe and taught from our boyhood. We were taught at school to believe these were the tactics of the Russians, not of Britain. Britain was the asylum of those who were driven from their own country—of Garibaldi, of Louis Kossuth, and others. I was deported when we were at war, but these deportations are taking place when the Government are not "pannicky." There is no case for it. Why should the Government stoop to this? As the Scottish say: "Why not be generous as a prince?" Why cannot they act the big man? Why cannot they stand on their dignity? Surely, the day has not come when Ministers of the Crown, responsible Ministers of the British Government, are afraid that they will be shot at? Why should they be afraid? There is absolutely no cause.

Mr. SPEAKER: I have explained to the hon. Member that that is what we debated last Monday. The question before us now is, whether or not the Government has got proper control over the conditions under which these men are interned now.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: What is worrying me at the moment is that we cannot get an opportunity to interview these men. One of them worked beside me in the Parkhead Works. We spent all last Saturday dealing with this, and running from here to the Scottish Office, trying to get liberty to take all risks to go to Ireland to interview the men affected. To-night the Home Secretary states that he knew all the time that we were not going to get liberty. We were told that we had to come at 11 o'clock on Saturday forenoon, and then they would be in a. position to inform us whether or not we should be allowed to interview the deportees. We went at 11 o'clock, and we were told by the Under-Secretary for Health, Scotland, that they were not in a position yet to tell us whether or not we should be able to see the deportees. We still appealed to him to try and do what he could, because we were very anxious. He had told us how unsafe it was, but we said we were prepared to take all the risks. It is all in the day's work, so far as we are concerned. We have taken risks before, and we are prepared to take them now, and at any time.
Then, we were told—this was on a Saturday remember, after being tied up here all the week—to come back at five o'clock, and they would then see what could be done. When we went back, we were informed that they had no further information to give us. Yet here you have the responsible Minister, who has the brass face to stand at that Treasury Box to-night, and tell us to our face, we, who represent the people, that he knew all the time. Remember, it is not us—we have been treated like that by our employers all our lives, and we shall get over it—but it is this House, to the Rules and Regulations of which you, Mr. Speaker, have tied me down, and in which you are so anxious, and they are so anxious to guard all the tomfoolery of the man who walks up and down the Floor—[Interruption.] Here in this House, this House of Prayer, where, you have prayed as well as I, and then stand, after all that solemnity, and violate that solemnity by telling a deliberate lie—[Interruption.]

Mr. SPEAKER: That is a statement which is never allowed on the part of any Member of the House. We can only continue here by assuming one another's good faith, and we are assuming now the good faith of the hon. Member himself. He will see that that is a statement which he must withdraw.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I have every respect for you, Mr. Speaker, and I withdraw. But there is no denying the fact that the Home Secretary misled us. That is a fact, and facts are chiels that daurna be disputed; and a rose by any other name smells as sweet. I can assure the House, and even the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister, that this is a very serious blunder. Great principles are involved here. You think we do not love our native land, you think we do not revere the laws of our land, but we do, and up to this point we believed it utterly impossible that men could be taken from their children in the middle of the night and given away to another country—[An HON. MEMBER: "Speak up!"]—I can speak up. I am not like some of you; I do not require to get drunk to be able to speak. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!" and "Withdraw!"]

Mr. SPEAKER: It is impossible to allow things of that sort to be said. The
hon. Member has done what I asked him to do in regard to the other matter, and I must ask him to withdraw an expression of that kind.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I withdraw, in deference to you, Mr. Speaker, but I know perfectly well—

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member, for the last quarter of an hour, has kept fairly well to the Motion. But now he is again going as wide as he did at the beginning. Will he please keep to the Motion?

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the word, but I can assure the House, that with all my ruggedness, I am very much in earnest about it, and it is in the interest of my country that I am in earnest. It is her honour that I am anxious to guard, and if I have said some hard things to the Secretary of State on this matter, it is because I feel keenly, and I know what it is for my children to be hanging round my wife. [An HON. MEMBER: "In the middle of the night?"] Yes, in the middle of the night. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame!"] See the cads.

Mr. SPEAKER: The House knows the hon. Member is speaking under very special circumstances. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] He has told us that he himself has suffered under conditions similar to those which we are now discussing.

Mr. H. H. SPENCER: May I ask the hon. Member if he will tell the House what he was deported for?

Mr. SPEAKER: That has nothing to do with the Question before the House. The House is always generous enough to disregard matters of past history.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: The question has been asked, and I will answer it in a word.

Mr. SPEAKER: I did not approve of the hon. Member putting the question. The hon. Member must please keep to the, Motion.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I should like to appeal to the Prime Minister, because the idea of deporting British subjects is a very serious matter. My deportation ended just as this deportation will probably end, and that was that I was brought to my home again in the middle of the night in a special train.

Mr. PETO: On a point of Order. Has this any relevancy to the Motion, and is it not the custom when an hon. Member has been called to order three times to ask him to resume his seat?

Mr. SPEAKER: I cannot allow the hon. Member to continue his speech, unless he can keep within the rules of order.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: All I can say now is that, after trying to appeal to the better nature of right hon. Gentlemen opposite, it is evident to me that the Tories are trying to make your position impossible, Mr. Speaker. I rose in order to give the House the benefit of my experience in the interests of law and order, in the interests of the fair name of Britain—

Mr. SPEAKER: I have given the hon. Member every opportunity—more than customary opportunity. As he seems unable to keep his remarks relevant to the Motion, I must ask him to resume his seat. The Attorney-General.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Douglas Hogg): The Debate to which we have listened this evening, in which hon. Members have tried to obey the rulings which you, Mr. Speaker and Mr. Deputy-Speaker, have from time to time given, has indicated the extreme difficulty of dissociating this discussion from that of a, week ago. I understood that the hon. Member who moved the Motion said that here we were discussing the whole question again. He based his criticism upon the statement that the position with regard to the Irish deportees was entirely different from the position which might prevail if anybody accused of an offence in Scotland was wanted from England. He told us that he had made careful inquiry, and that he had been informed that in such a case we should have to proceed by application for extradition by inquiry before a local magistrate. I should like to assure the hon. Member that, whoever his informant was, he was extraordinarily ignorant of the law about which he professed to be giving information—

Mr. WEIR: You are quibbling.

Mr. MAXTON: He is getting well into the soup.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I am within the recollection of the House. The
House will remember the complaint that the hon. Member made with regard to England and Scotland, that we could not transfer somebody who was wanted for a crime from the one country to the other, or from one part of Great Britain to the other without first having something in the nature of a judicial inquiry or trial before a magistrate in the country in which the accused person resided. I think that is a fair representation of what the hon. Member said. His informant was entirely mistaken, because the procedure in regard to Scotland is under exactly the same Statute as the procedure which I indicated as that which prevailed in the case—

Mr. MAXTON: Get on. [HON. MEMBERS: "Name!"]

Mr. BUCHANAN: This information was given to me in private by a gentleman who is well known in legal circles, and if I were at liberty to give his name he would be recognised as being of higher standing in Scottish law than any Member of this House. I say that frankly.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I am sure that the hon. Member does not think that I am impugning his good faith, but I am sure that if the attention of his informant, more certainly as he is a person of much legal knowledge, were drawn to the Indictable Offences Act, 1848, he would agree that Section 12, under which we propose to proceed in the case of deportees, relates to the transfer of people from England or Scotland to Ireland. Section 14 relates to the transfer of people from Ireland or Scotland to England, and Section 15 relates to the transfer from England or Ireland to Scotland. The procedure in all three cases is exactly the same and in no one of the three is there any such judicial inquiry as that referred to by the hon. Member.

Mr. BUCHANAN: May I point out that if the Act is properly quoted it has never been carried out in that way in Scotland during the last 30 or 40 years. The person indicted always appears before the local magistrate and is then remitted to England.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I cannot tell the hon. Member what the practice has been in Scotland but—

Mr. MAXTON: That is the whole point Why quibble about it?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must listen. He has made his speech.

Mr. MAXTON: Under considerable interruptions before you arrived.

Mr. SPEAKER: I have always protected the hon. Member.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: As far as I know, the only Statute is the one to which I have referred. If there is any other procedure, I do not know of it. The procedure is exactly the same in relation to each one of the three countries, and so far as I know—nobody can carry the whole Statute law in his head—there is no other procedure as between England and Ireland than that which is provided in the Act of Parliament. The suggestion was made more than once by hon. Members opposite that the handing over of the deportees to the jurisdiction of the Irish Free State was outside the law. That is a matter which I understood was discussed fully last week. It was agreed by the most eminent lawyers in the House that it was within the law. I hope, therefore, that the House will forgive me if I do not go back on that topic. I would only remind the House that it is on the assumption that this is within the law that the whole of this Motion is founded. Therefore the argument which was based upon the assumption, made, for example, by the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. O'Connor) that there was some outrageous departure from the law, is really beside the point of the particular Debate on which we are employed. The next point made by hon. Members opposite was that they assured us, and I entirely and sincerely accept their assurances, that they knew certain of these deportees and that, so far as they knew, there was nothing whatever against them. The hon. Member, I think for the Bridgeton Division, asked us last week whether, if such an assurance were given by Members of the House, we would not at once let out the prisoners.

Mr. MAXTON: He did not ask anything so silly or stupid.

Mr. SPEAKER: Let me remind the hon. Member for Bridgeton that, if he wish to make an explanation, or if something is put into his mouth which he did not say, his proper course, instead of interrupting, is to rise in his
place, and ask the Member in possession of the House to give way so as to allow him to make his explanation. The House will always listen to an hon. Member in these circumstances.

Mr. MAXTON: If you will excuse me, Sir, I really felt that on that point there was a misstatement of what I did ask for in this House. But I want to say quite candidly, Sir, that my interruptions have been due to the very unfair treatment accorded to my colleagues.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: If the hon. Member assures me that was not what he asked for, I accept his assurance. I thought I heard him ask it. At any rate, there is no point in getting up in this House and assuring us that hon. Members opposite know nothing against these men, unless the hon. Members who give that assurance know what influenced our action.

Mr. MAXTON: On a point of Order. The point I made was, not that I knew nothing against the men, but that the Government had nothing against them.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: If the hon. Member was making that statement he must have been making a statement about which he could not have been informed. I did give him credit for a statement that would have been within his knowledge. Hon. Members opposite will realise, when they complain of being affronted as Members of the House because their assurance is not taken on a matter of this kind, and because they are not given facilities for going to see these men, that it would be a far greater affront to them if the Government were to accept their assurances as to whether these men were innocent or not, because that would imply that we thought some hon. Members opposite knew who were implicated. We do not think so, and that is why we prefer to act on the information we have got rather than on the information hon. Members have not got.
I pass on to deal with one or two questions which were raised, especially by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Bristol (Mr. H. Morris)—the question, namely, as to the extent of the control which has been maintained by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. I want to start by reminding the House that, in order to ascertain whether we are right or wrong
in our action, we have first to ascertain accurately the circumstances in which that action was taken. It is no good saying "We ought not to hand these people over to the Irish Free State," unless you first remind yourself that the whole object of this proceeding was to carry out the purpose which the Free State Government regarded as essential to the security of their country, and to carry it out in the only way in which, in their judgment, it was possible to carry it out without giving affront to the Irish people, It is no good saying "You ought to have interned these people in Great Britain," when the, Irish Free State Government come and say "It is essential that they should be interned in Southern Ireland." When one hears right hon. Members like the right hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) assuring us, for instance, that they have no desire to hinder and hamper the Free State, one begins to wonder whether the Free State would not pray to be saved from its friends, because the right hon. Gentleman says, "What assurance have you that these men will be returned, or that they will be kept safe when over there?" Those questions involve the gravest imputation upon either the good faith or the good order of the Irish Free State Government.

Mr. MUIR: It is a misrepresentation of the position.

Mr. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member wants to make a personal explanation, he is entitled to speak, but not otherwise.

Mr. MUIR: I want to make a correction. It is an entire misrepresentation of the case.

The ATTORNEY - GENERAL: The House will realise how accurate my statement is when they remember what is the control of which my right hon. Friend only half an hour ago gave particulars. The terms upon which these men were handed over to the Free State Government included an express pledge by that Government that they would hold

these men harmless and keep them safe, and would return them if it should turn out that the Advisory Committee so directed.

HON. MEMBERS: Can they fulfil it?

Mr. MACLEAN: They have passed out of your control, then?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean) misses the point. I have said, and it is the essence of our case, that the thing we were asked to do was to arrest certain people against whom was produced evidence which satisfied us was a primâ facie case, who were plotting, according to the evidence, against the security of Ireland—and against the safety and good order of Great Britain as well, for that matter—and to intern these people in Southern Ireland.

Mr. MACLEAN: Hand them over.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Hand them over, if you like, though I think my expression is the more accurate.

Mr. CLYNES rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put"; but Mr. SPEAKER withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The last thing I wish is to prevent the House expressing its view on this matter. All I will say, in conclusion, is that if you once assume that what we are asked to do is to intern these people in Southern Ireland, it would be impossible, in my submission, to do it with greater security and with greater pledges of safety than those which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has exacted; and, therefore, it follows that my right hon. Friend's action must be right, unless you doubt the good faith or the strength of the Irish Free State Government. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]

Question put, "That this House do now adjourn."

The House divided: Ayes, 147; Noes, 266.

Division No. 50.]
AYES.
[11.0 pm.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Batey, Joseph
Briant, Frank


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Broad, F. A.


Ammon, Charles George
Berkeley, Captain Reginald
Brotherton, J.


Attlee, C. R.
Bonwick, A.
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Bowdler, W. A.
Buchanan, G.


Barnes, A.
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Buckle, J.


Butler, J. R. M. (Cambridge Univ.)
Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)
Ritson, J.


Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)
Johnstone, Harcourt (Willesden, East
Roberts, C. H. (Derby)


Cairns, John
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Chapple, W. A.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown
Robinson, W. C. (York, Elland)


Charleton, H. C.
Jones, R. T. (Carnarvon)
Royce, William Stapleton


Clarke, Sir E. C.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Saklatvala, S.


Clynes, Rt Hon. John R.
Jowett, F. W. (Bradford, East)
Salter, Dr. A.


Darbishire, C. W.
Jowitt, W. A. (The Hartlepools)
Scrymgeour, E


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
Sexton, James


Davies, J. C. (Denbigh, Denbigh)
Kenyon, Barnet
Shinwell, Emanuel


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Kirkwood, D.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Duffy, T. Gavan
Lansbury, George
Simpson, J. Hope


Duncan, C.
Lawson, John James
Sinclair, Sir A.


Ede, James Chuter
Leach, W.
Smith, T. (Pontefract)


Enwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Lee, F.
Snell, Harry


Entwistle, Major C. F.
Lees-Smith, H. B. (Keighley)
Spencer, H. H. (Bradford, S.)


Foot, Isaac
Linfield, F. C.
Stephen, Campbell


George, Major G. L. (Pembroke)
Lowth, T.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Gosling, Harry
Lunn, William
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
M'Entee, V. L.
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)


Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plalstow)


Gray, Frank (Oxford)
March, S.
Tillett, Benjamin


Greenall, T.
Marshall, Sir Arthur H.
Trevelyan, C. P.


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Martin, F. (Aberd'n & Klnc'dine, E.)
Turner, Ben


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Maxton, James
Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)


Groves, T.
Middleton, G.
Warne, G. H.


Grundy, T. W.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Morel, E. D.
Webb, Sidney


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Morris, Harold
Weir, L. M.


Harbord, Arthur
Muir, John W.
Westwood, J.


Hardle, George D.
Murnin, H.
Wheatley, J.


Harney, E. A.
Nichol, Robert
White, H. G. (Birkenhead, E.)


Harris, Percy A.
O'Connor, Thomas P.
Whiteley, W.


Hastings, Patrick
O'Grady, Captain James
Wignall, James


Hay, Captain J. P. (Cathcart)
Oliver, George Harold
Williams, David (Swansea, E.)


Hayday, Arthur
Paling, W.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Hemmerde, E. G.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Phillipps, Vivian
Wintringham, Margaret


Herriotts, J.
Ponsonby, Arthur
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Hillary, A. E.
Potts, John S.
Wright, W.


Hinds, John
Pringle, W. M. R.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Hirst, G. H.
Richards, R.



Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


John, William (Rhondda, West)
Riley, Ben
Mr. Morgan Jones and Mr. T Griffiths.


NOES.


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Bruton, Sir James
Doyle, N. Grattan


Ainsworth, Captain Charles
Buckingham, Sir H.
Edmondson, Major A. J.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton, East)
Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Ednam, Viscount


Alexander, Col. M. (Southwark)
Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Burn, Colonel Sir Charles Rosdew
Ellis, R. G.


Apsley, Lord
Butcher, Sir John George
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith


Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin
Butt, Sir Alfred
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Wilfrid W.
Cadogan, Major Edward
Erskine-Bolst. Captain C.


Baird, Rt. Hon. Sir John Lawrence
Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.
Evans, Capt. H. Arthur (Leicester. E.)


Baldwin, Rt, Hon. Stanley
Cassels, J. D.
Falcon, Captain Michael


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Cautley, Henry Strother
Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray


Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston) 
Fawkes, Major F. H.


Banks, Mitchell
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Flanagan, W. H.


Barlow, Rt. Hon. Sir Montague
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Foreman, Sir Henry


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Chapman, Sir S.
Forestler-Walker, L,


Barnston, Major Harry
Churchman, Sir Arthur
Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot


Barrle, Sir Charles Coupar (Banff)
Clarry, Reginald George
Fraser, Major Sir Keith


Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Clayton, G. C.
Frece, Sir Walter de


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Coates, Lt.-Cot. Norman
Fremantle. Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.


Bennett, Sir T. J (Sevenoaks)
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Furness, G. J.


Berry, Sir George
Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K. 
Galbraith, J. F. W.


Betterton, Henry B.
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Ganzoni, Sir John


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale
Gaunt, Rear-Admiral Sir Guy R.


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Conway, Sir W. Martin
Goff, Sir R. Park


Blundell, F. N.
Cope, Major William
Gould, James C.


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.
Gray, Harold (Cambridge)


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South)
Greaves-Lord, Walter


Brass, Captain W.
Crook, C. W. (East Ham, North)
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Crooke, J. S. (Deritend)
Gretton, Colonel John


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Guest, Hon. C. H. (Bristol, N.)


Briggs, Harold
Dalziel, Sir D (Lambeth, Brixton)
Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.


Brittain, Sir Harry
Davidson, J. C. C.(Hemel Hempstead)
Guthrie, Thomas Maule


Brown, Major D. C. (Hexham)
Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Gwynne, Rupert S.


Brown, Brig-Gen. Clifton (Newbury)
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.


Brown, J. W. (Middlesbrough, E.)
Dawson, Sir Philip
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)


Bruford, R.
Dixon, C. H. (Rutland)
Hall, Rr-Adml Sir W.(Llv'p'l,W.D'by)




Halstead, Major D.
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Mitchell, W. F. (Saffron Walden)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Molloy, Major L. G. S.
Sanders, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert A.


Harrison, F. C.
Molson, Major John Elsdale
Sandon, Lord


Harvey, Major S. E.
Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Hawke, John Anthony
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Hay, Major T. W. (Norfolk, South)
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.
Shepperson, E. W.


Henderson, Sir T. (Roxburgh)
Morrison, Hugh (Wilts, Salisbury)
Shipwright, Captain D.


Hennesay, Major J. R. G.
Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Murchison, C. K.
Singleton, J. E.


Herbert, S. (Scarborough)
Nail, Major Joseph
Skelton, A. N.


Hewett, Sir J. P.
Nesbitt, Robert C.
Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)


Hiley, Sir Ernest
Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)
Smith, Sir Harold (Wavertree)


Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D.(St. Marylebone)
Newson, Sir Percy Wilson
Somerville, Daniel (Barrow-in-Furness)


Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Stanley, Lord


Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)
Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.


Hood, Sir Joseph
Nield, Sir Herbert
Stewart, Gershom (Wirral)


Hopkins, John W. W.
Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John
Stott, Lt.-Col. W. H.


Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Strauss, Edward Anthony


Houfton, John Plowright
Paget, T. G.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton.


Howard, Capt. D. (Cumberland, N.)
Parker, Owen (Kettering)
Sturrock, J. Leng


Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Col. C. K.
Pease, William Edwin
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Hudson, Capt. A.
Penny, Frederick George
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid H.


Hughes, Collingwood
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Hume, G. H.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Hutchison, G. A. C. (Midlothian, N.)
Perring, William George
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Hutchison, Sir R. (Kirkcaldy)
Peto, Basil E.
Thorpe, Captain John Henry


Hutchison, W. (Kelvingrove)
Philipson, H. H.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Pielou, D. P.
Turton, Edmund Russborough


Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F, S.
Pilditch, Sir Philip
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Jarrett, G. W. S.
Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray
Wallace, Captain E.


Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)


Kennedy, Captain M. S. Nigel
Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.
Waring, Major Walter


King, Captain Henry Douglas
Price, E. G.
Warner, Sir T. Courtenay T.


Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Privett, F. J.
Watson, Capt. J. (Stockton-on-Tees)


Lamb, J. Q.
Rae, Sir Henry N.
Watts, Dr. T. (Man., Withington)


Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Colonel G. R.
Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. John Fredk. Peel
Wells, S. R.


Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C.)
Rawson, Lieut.-Com. A. C.
Weston, Colonel John Wakefield


Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Reid, D. D. (County Down)
Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.


Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Remer, J. R.
White, Lt.-Col. G. D. (Southport)


Lloyd-Greame, Rt. Hon. Sir P.
Rentoul, G. S.
Whitla, Sir William


Lorden, John William
Reynolds, W. G. W.
Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond)


Lorimes, H. D.
Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend)
Winterton, Earl


Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)
Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)
Wise, Frederick


Lumley, L. R.
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)
Wolmer, Viscount


Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. Sir S. (Ecclesall)
Wood, Rt. Hn. Edward F. L. (Ripon)


Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Robertson, J. D. (Islington, W.)
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)
Rogerson, Capt. J. E.
Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward


Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Roundell, Colonel R. F.
Yerburgh, R. D. T.


Manville, Edward
Ruggles-Brise, Major E.



Margesson, H, D. B.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES—


Mason, Lieut.-Col. C. K.
Russell, William (Bolton)
Colonel Leslie Wilson and Colonel Gibbs.


Mercer, Colonel H.
Russell-Wells, Sir Sydney

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BILL.

Postponed Proceeding resumed on Consideration of Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee)

CLAUSE 1.—(Prolongation of fourth special period.)

The fourth special period defined in section three of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1922 (in this Act referred to as "the Act of 1922"), shall be extended so as to terminate on the seventeenth day of October, nineteen hundred and twenty-three, instead of on the first day of July, nineteen hundred and twenty-three, and the provisions of the said Act relating to benefit within the fourth special period shall have effect subject to the following modifications: —

(1) The periods for which a person may be authorised to receive benefit shall be periods not exceeding in the aggregate forty-four weeks;

(2) When a person has received benefit in the fourth special period for periods amounting in the aggregate to twenty-two weeks, he shall cease to be qualified for the receipt of benefit in the fourth special period until the expiration of two weeks from the date (whether falling before or after the commencement of this Act) on which the last period in respect of which benefit was payable ended:

(3) Notwithstanding anything in any Act, no person shall, except by virtue of an authorisation given by the Minister under section four of the Act of 1922 as amended by this Act, receive benefit in the fourth special period for periods amounting in the aggregate to more than twenty-six weeks, and no person shall, whether by virtue of such an authorisation as aforesaid or otherwise, receive benefit in the fourth special period for periods amounting in the aggregate to more than forty-four weeks.

Amendment proposed: After the word "modifications" ["subject to the following modifications"], to insert

"(1) Any person who is normally employed in such employment as would make him an employed person within the meaning of the principal Act, and who is genuinely seeking but is unable to obtain employment, shall be qualified for the receipt of benefit during the fourth special period notwithstanding that by reason that he does not satisfy the first statutory condition, or that he is disqualified under Sub-section (4) of Section eight of the principal Act for receiving benefit, or by reason of the provisions of paragraph (3) of the Second Schedule to the principal Act, he may not be entitled to benefit, and the provisions of the principal Act relating to the payment of benefit as modified by this section shall apply during the fourth special period, and Section four of the Act of nineteen hundred and twenty-two is hereby repealed."—[Mr. Hayday.]

Question again proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

Mr. GOSLING: I do not know whether the House realises how awkwardly the men employed on barges in and out of the Thames and Medway are placed by the decision of the Minister of Labour, who came to the conclusion that, because they were continuously on board, that amounted to continuous employment. Their difficulty is that they may be unemployed and yet on their craft because the barges they work on are also their homes. It has been argued that because they render some service to the craft that amounts to a continuity of employment although there is no payment. Let me illustrate. The man is paid for the work in connection with the barge, taking in the cargo, carrying it to its destination, and putting it out. Then he may have to wait, as he does in these very difficult times, sometimes a week and sometimes longer without any pay, and he is to all intents and purposes unemployed, but because the craft on which he has been working and is going to work on again is his home, he has to remain on board. He is very much in the same position as a man working on an estate or a miner living in an owner's cottage who continues to live in the cottage although un-employed. There can be no doubt in a ease of that kind, and yet there is in the case of these men because the Minister of Labour has decided that they are continuously in employment because they are continuously caring for their craft. I submit that these men are looking after
their homes. It is quite true that they have to put up the lights at night, take them down in the morning, see the craft is moored, and so forth, but they are only doing it in the same way as we shut our windows when there is a gale, or fasten the door. They are only doing it because they are caring for the home in which they have to live, and it is unjust to say that that can be construed into employment
The other point to which I want to call the attention of the Minister is that of men working on canals. It is not quite, although very much the same point. They live on board their craft. Let me take the case of a craft working from Birmingham to some other place too far down the canal to be in communication with their base. They leave their cards with their employer in Birmingham, and when they get to another place, or even to London, and their voyage is finished, they remain on their boats and no pay comes along until there is another cargo. They would be able, if they were in that position in Birmingham, to get their benefit, but because they have left their cards behind they cannot go to the Employment Exchange and register. We say that is a very great hardship that should be relieved, and we hope that will be done under this Amendment. With regard to dock labourers, they in many cases have to register twice in a day. They feel that that is unfair to them, and that they should not be called upon to register more than is done under other industries, and that is once a day. The other question that was raised upstairs, and to which, I understand, we are going to have some answer—or I hope so—from the Minister, is with regard to very casual men, and the difficulty about standing fast. It is quite true that great efforts have been made towards what is called decasualising labour, but the more you decasualise labour, to all of which we agree—and I have done a good deal to help—the more you casualise. That is to say, for every man you put in a regular job, the man left out is rendered more casual than he was. These poor men cannot get employment for the first day of the week they work without a stamp on their cards, and the only effort made by the Minister in this matter up to the present is to try to find some way of prosecuting men who
take stamps off other people's cards to put on their own, when they cannot otherwise get employment. I know that is wrong, and I would like to see it stopped, but the real remedy is to make it against the Regulations for any employer to ask to see a man's card first before employing him, because a man does not mind paying if he sees a chance of earning money. If you do not do that, it leads to the transferring of stamps from other people's cards. There is no comradeship unless a man does that, and although it is not proper, it is the thing that men might do when they are hoping to help each other. That can be remedied. The Minister of Labour sent to the employers and the trade union I represent asking us to help him to stop it, and we are helping, but we do not want to do it at the expense of poor fellows looking for jobs, by encouraging employers to ask to see the stamp on a man's card before giving him a job. When men now present themselves for a job, their cards are examined, and it nearly always happens that a man whose card is not stamped does not get the job. That causes this illegal practice. If something can be done before the Bill becomes an Act to put some of these things right, and if the Minister of Labour will undertake to give consideration to them, and to hear those who represent the men, I shall feel that my maiden effort in this House has not been in vain.

Sir M. BARLOW: First of all, to deal with the questions raised by the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken, I will have them looked into The question of the bargemen is a novel one to me—certainly the Medway and canal bargemen. But it does occur to me that in a case involving the difficulties referred to by the hon. Gentleman, obviously the way would be for me to take the case to a Court of Referees, and get it decided.

Mr. GOSLING: That has already been done.

Sir M. BARLOW: To deal broadly with the proposed Amendment, I may say at once that I am afraid I cannot accept it The effect of it would be to repeal Section 4 of the Act of 1922, with the result that the discretion of the Minister of Labour, with certain conditions and: safeguards will disappear. Any person getting bene-
fit who could prove that he was normally employed in an insurable occupation, and was genuinely seeking whole-time employment and could not obtain it would be entitled to benefit. I do not really believe that that is the desire of the House or of the country.
About the broad issue, the proposed Clause, as I pointed out to the Committee, not only disposes of certain conditions which exist under that particular legislation, but by its wholesale repeal of Section 4 it also repeals two most important conditions as to employment, the first that the men must be employed 20 weeks, or he must have had a reasonable amount of employment since 31st December, 1919, and secondly, it also repeals certain safeguards in the case of ex-service men. In the latter case they need only show that they were so employed before the War. All these things go if Section 4 is repealed. Has the Minister to have a discretion or not? If he has then it is exercised in this way: really by two pieces of machinery. First of all he issues rules or directions as to general policy; secondly, those rules are administered, subject to the Minister's general control and discretion, through the Employment Committees. Before I go further I should like here and now to put on record, before the House, my very highest appreciation of the work done by these Committees throughout the country.
Be it remembered—and I am sure my hon. Friend will be in accordance with this—that at least half the excellent work done by these Committees is done by the trade union representatives, who, with the employers representatives, bear their very admirable share of the work. In addition, the Minister lays down rules or directions—I will not call them regulations—by means of memoranda, and these are complained of now in respect to the way in which boys, girls and married women are dealt with. On this I gave two undertakings before the Committee. I repeat them here.
I promised, first of all, that I would go through those various instructions—assuming this Amendment fails of approval of the House and my discretion is maintained—and see if, in any respect, on the experience of the last eighteen months or so, and on the evidence, I am satisfied that the shoe pinches anywhere.
Take the case of aliens. I do not want to prejudge the issue of the case, but I will gladly consider the Rules from that point of view, and I shall welcome any help and advice that can be given to me by any hon. Member on that subject. Some of the evidence put before me with regard to aliens does give me ground for thinking that perhaps the time has come when a reasonable modification can be made, but I do not want to be pressed too far. I say that as a primâ facie view, but I will go into the matter very carefully. There are other Regulations, too. That is the first undertaking I gave. The second undertaking was that I would attempt to codify the various directions, so as to get them into one or at the most two documents. I think those two undertakings should go far to meet the difficulties which have been raised by the hon. Gentleman opposite.

Mr. HARRIS: Will those documents be published as a Parliamentary Paper, and be available?

Sir M. BARLOW: I do not know whether they will be published as a Parliamentary Paper, but I can easily make them available for hon. Members in what is the most convenient shape. My desire is that they should be available both for hon. Members and for the pubic, and so I gave the undertaking as to codification.
There is one more point, that of discretion. The effect of the Amendment, if carried, would be to take away the Minister's discretion. Believe me, the Minister's discretion is very frequently

exercised, not to make matters harder for the applicants, but to make them easier. There is a subsequent Amendment on the Paper—I do not know whether or not it will be pressed—to put all these Rules which the Minister makes into the form of Regulations of a statutory character. If that be done, the easy and elastic exercise of the Minister's discretion, which, as I say, is employed frequently in order to mitigate difficult cases and to ease hard cases, would inevitably disappear. What would happen would be that when the Regulation was made it would have to be strictly observed. I should have no power to alter it, except by coming to this House. I do not think that kind of modification of the Minister's discretion would be of great benefit to the applicant

Mr. GOSLING: Will you say a word about stamps?

Sir M. BARLOW: With regard to stamps and the casual man, that arises really on another Amendment. There again I have given already an undertaking that I will look into that matter, and see whether anything can be done, by way of Regulation or otherwise. There is a Clause on the paper to make the removal of the stamps a penalty. Of course, that does not meet my hon. Friend's point. He wants something that will discourage the employer from asking to see the stamp, but I am not prepared to make a Clause of it in the Bill.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 127; Noes, 209.

Division No. 51.]
AYES.
[11.30 p.m.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Guthrie, Thomas Maule


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Darbishire, C. W.
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)


Ammon, Charles George
Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Harbord, Arthur


Barnes, A.
Duncan, C.
Hardle, George D.


Barrle, Sir Charles Coupar (Banff)
Ede, James Chuter
Harris, Percy A.


Batey, Joseph
Edge, Captain Sir William
Hay, Captain J. P. (Cathcart)


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Hayday, Arthur


Berkeley, Captain Reginald
England. Lieut.-Colonel A.
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)


Bonwick, A.
Entwistle, Major C. F.
Herriotts, J.


Bowdler, W. A.
Falconer, J.
Hinds, John


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Fildes, Henry
Hirst, G. H.


Briant, Frank
Foot, Isaac
Hutchison, Sir R. (Kirkcaldy)


Broad, F. A.
George, Major G. L. (Pembroke)
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)


Brotherton, J.
Gosling, Harry
John, William (Rhondda, West)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)


Buchanan, G.
Gray, Frank (Oxford)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)


Buckle, J.
Greenall, T.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)


Burgess, S.
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Jones, R. T. (Carnarvon)


Cairns, John
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)


Chapple, W. A.
Groves, T,
Jowett, F. W. (Bradford, East)


Charleton. H C.
Grundy, T. W.
Jowitt, W. A. (The Hartlepools)


Kenworthy, Lieut-Commander J. M
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Trevelyan, C. P.


Kirkwood, D.
Phillipps, Vivian
Turner, Ben


Lansbury, George
Potts, John S.
Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)


Lawson, John James
Richards, R.
Warne, G. H.


Leach, W.
Richardson, R, (Houghton-le-Spring)
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Lee, F.
Riley, Ben
Webb, Sidney


Linfield, F. C.
Ritson, J.
Weir, L. M.


Lowth, T.
Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Westwood, J.


M'Entee, V. L.
Robinson, W. C. (York, Elland)
Wheatley, J


Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Saklatvala, S.
White, H. G. (Birkenhead, E.)


Marshall, Sir Arthur H.
Salter, Dr. A.
Whiteley, W.


Martin, F. (Aberd'n & Klnc'dine, E.)
Scrymgeour, E.
Wignall, James


Maxton, James
Sexton, James
Williams, David (Swansea, E.)


Middleton, G.
Shinwell, Emanuel
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Millar, J. D.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Sinclair, Sir A.
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Muir, John W.
Smith, T. (Pontefract)
Young, Rt. Hon. E. H. (Norwich)


Murnin, H.
Spencer, H. H. (Bradford, S.)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Nichol, Robert
Stephen, Campbell



O'Grady, Captain James
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Oliver, George Harold
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)
Mr. Griffiths and Mr. Lunn.


Paling, W.




NOES.


Agg Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Evans, Capt. H. Arthur (Leicester, E.)
Lorimer, H. D.


Ainsworth, Captain Charles
Evans, Ernest (Cardigan)
Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)


Alexander, Col. M. (Southwark)
Falcon, Captain Michael
Lumley, L. R.


Amery, Rt. Hon, Leopold C. M. S.
Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)


Apsley, Lord
Fawkes, Major F. H.
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm


Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin
Flanagan, W. H.
McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Wilfrid W.
Forestier-Walker, L.
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot
Manville, Edward


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Frece, Sir Walter de
Margesson, H. D. R.


Banks, Mitchell
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E
Mason, Lieut.-Col. C. K.


Barlow, Rt. Hon. Sir Montague
Furness, G. J.
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Mitchell, W. F. (Saffron Walden)


Barnston, Major Harry
Ganzoni, Sir John
Molloy, Major L. G. S.


Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C H. (Devizes)
Gaunt, Rear-Admiral Sir Guy R.
Moore-Brabazon, Lileut.-Col. J. T. C.


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Goff, Sir R. Park
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.


Bennett, Sir T. J. (Sevenoaks)
Gould, James C.
Morrison, Hugh (Wilts, Salisbury)


Berry, Sir George
Gray, Harold (Cambridge)
Nail, Major Joseph


Betterton, Henry B.
Greaves-Lord, Walter
Nesbitt, Robert C.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Newman, Colonel, J. R. P. (Finchley)


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Gretton, Colonel John
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Blundell, F. N.
Guinness, Lieut. Col. Hon. W. E.
Newson, Sir Percy Wilson


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Hall, Rr-Adml Sir W.(Llv'p'l,W. D'by)
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Halstead, Major D.
Paget, T. G.


Briggs, Harold
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Parker, Owen (Kettering)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Newbury)
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Pease, William Edwin


Brown, Major D. C. (Hexham)
Harrison, F. C.
Penny, Frederick George


Brown, J. W. (Middlesbrough, E.)
Harvey, Major S. E.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Bruford, R.
Hawke, John Anthony
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Bruton, Sir James
Hay, Major T. W. (Norfolk, South)
Perring, William George


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Henderson, Sir T. (Roxburgh)
Phillipps, Vivian


Butt, Sir Alfred
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Pielou, D. P.


Cadogan, Major Edward
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Pilditch, Sir Philip


Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.
Herbert, S. (Scarborough)
Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.


Cautley, Henry Strother
Hewett, Sir J. P.
Price, E. G.


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Hlley, Sir Ernest
Privett, F. J.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Rankin, Captain James Stuart


Chapman, Sir S.
Hogg, Rt. Hon.Sir D.(St. Marylebone)
Rawson, Lieut.-Com. A. C.


Churchman, Sir Arthur
Holder, Gerald Fitzroy
Remer, J. R.


Clarry, Reginald George
Hood, Sir Joseph
Rentoul, G. S.


Clayton, G. C.
Hopkins, John W. W.
Reynolds, W. G. W.


Coates, Lt.-Col. Norman
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Houlton, John Plowright
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Howard, Capt. D. (Cumberland, N.)
Robertson, J. D. (Islington, W.)


Cope. Major William
Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Col. C. K.
Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stretford)


Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South)
Hudson, Capt. A.
Roundell, Colonel R. F.


Crook, C. W. (East Ham, North)
Hughes, Collingwood
Ruggles-Brise, Major E.


Crooke, J. S. (Derltend)
Hume, G. H.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Hutchison, W. (Kelvingrove)
Russell, William (Bolton)


Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead)
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Russell-Wells, Sir Sydney


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Jarrett, G. W. S.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Dawson, Sir Philip
King, Capt. Henry Douglas
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Dixon, Capt. H. (Belfast, E.)
Kinloch-Cooko, Sir Clement
Sanders, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert A.


Doyle, N. Grattan
Lamb, J. Q.
Sanden, Lord


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Colonel G. R.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Ednam, Viscount
Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C.)
Shepperson, E. W.


Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Shipwright, Captain D.


Ellis, R. G.
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Singleton, J. E.


Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Lloyd-Greame, Rt. Hon. Sir P.
Skelton, A. N.


Erskine-Bolst, Captain C.
Lorden, John William
Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)




Smith, Sir Harold (Wavertree)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond)


Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Winterton, Earl


Stanley, Lord
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.
Wise, Frederick


Stott, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Wallace, Captain E.
Wolmer, Viscount


Stuart, Lord C. Crichton.
Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)
Wood, Rt. Hn. Edward F. L. (Ripon)


Sturrock, J. Leng
Waring, Major Walter
Yerburgh, R. D. T.


Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser
Watts, Dr. T. (Man., Withington)



Sugden, Sir Wilfrid H.
Wells, S. R.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.
White, Lt.-Col. G. D. (Southport)
Colonel Leslie Wilson and Colonel Gibbs.


Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)
Whitla, Sir William

Mr. T. THOMSON: I beg to move, in paragraph (1), to leave out the words "forty-four" ["in the aggregate forty-four weeks"], and to insert instead thereof the word "fifty"
The clause as it now stands gives a total of forty-four weeks benefit. There is no doubt the Minister has acted generously, but the purpose of the Amendment is similar to that of others on the Paper seeking to place this burden, which many of us feel is distinctly a national burden, on the Exchequer rather than on the local rates.

Mr. SPEAKER: Do I understand this imposes a charge on the Exchequer? If so, it cannot be done on the Report stage.

Mr. THOMSON: It is a charge on the Unemployment Fund, but I submit that does not necessarily make it a charge on the Exchequer. It is a matter that we discussed in Committee.

Mr. SPEAKER: I was taking the hon. Member's own words. I suppose the effect of it will be to place a charge on the Exchequer.

Mr. THOMSON: That may be. It depends how unemployment varies in a subsequent period, but it does not call for any extra charge on the Exchequer.

Mr. SPEAKER: Perhaps it was a slip in the hon. Member's own words.

Mr. THOMSON: My point is that the benefit should be given in an earlier period rather than in a later because at present unemployment is more severe than it will be later on, and therefore if for this period the fund can be drawn upon at this time, it will relieve the local rates which otherwise will have to bear an immediate cost. In so far as this unemployment is due to national causes it should be made a national cost and not be thrown upon the local rates. The purpose of the Amendment is to avoid immediately putting an extra charge on the rates, which are already overburdened. The Minister of Health in reply to a question to-day told
me that in the last two years of abnormal unemployment £20,000,000 had been loaned to the Boards of Guardians which they had paid away in relief due to unemployment. In the same answer he stated that the poor rates in these cases vary from Is. 5d. to 10s. 4½d. in the pound, at a time when unemployment is still abnormal. Therefore it is not unreasonable to suggest that, instead of seeking to add to the responsibilities of local authorities, the Insurance Fund should bear these earlier charges and not place them on the local authorities.
I hope the Minister will be able to make some concession, realising that the local authorities have a burden which is past bearing. To-morrow, in conjunction with the Minister of Health, the Minister of Labour is to receive a deputation from 44 necessitous areas, representing about 10 million people, occupied mainly in the heavy iron and steel industries, which have been particularly hit. If he can make a concession this evening it would make his duty to-morrow easier in so far as he is able to meet the legitimate requests of the local authorities. In some districts in the country the rates will be less this year, but in my own district and all over the north-eastern coast the precepts will be higher than in the last 12 months. When rates are already at 20s. and 30s. in the pound, the House will realise that we have reached a period when it is impossible to add to the burdens of the local authorities.

Mr. T. HENDERSON: I beg to second the Amendment.
I appeal to the Minister to do something for the working classes, who are suffering intensely through the imposition of gaps in the payment of unemployment benefit. This afternoon the right hon. Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) spoke about theorising in connection with the position created by men on strike. Not from the point of view of theorising, but from my knowledge and experience of the sufferings of the working classes from whom I have lately come to this House, I make my appeal
to the right hon. Gentleman. All we ask for is six weeks' further benefit for the worker. I ask hon. Members to consider the experience of the average worker in the great industrial centres who has been unemployed for two years, 18 months, or 12 months; men and women who have led thrifty lives, who have seen their little savings eaten up during their unemployment, and are now face to face with such a condition of things that even a week or two is going to make a tremendous difference. The average housewife faced with the conditions which I have described looks forward with agony to what those six weeks would be to her. She tries to carry out her household duties on the pittance given her by the unemployment benefit so long as there is no gap, and she does her best and does wonderful things, but when faced with this position her sufferings are intensified. Is the right hon. Gentleman in earnest in expecting that in the course of the next nine months unemployment is going to be reduced to any considerable extern. Speaking with an intimate knowledge of the shipbuilding industry I have no hesitation in saying that 50 per cent, will never go back to employment as it was in normal times, and there is no possible chance of even 25 per cent, being employed in the industry in the next nine months. It is because of the sufferings that would be involved by his refusal that I ask the right hon. Gentleman to give consideration to this Amendment.

Sir M. BARLOW: I am sorry that I cannot accept the Amendment in its present shape. Together with the subsequent Amendment it would result in no less than 100 weeks unemployment benefit. The insurance policy has been stretched to such a limit that any further extension would turn it into poor law relief and nothing else. The policy of the Act of 1911 was 15 weeks. That was extended by the 1921 Act to 26. Under this Bill as a result of the extension of the fourth special period we get 44 weeks out of 50. That is not an ungenerous provision, and in view of the fact that there will be 26 weeks' benefit to come in the next benefit year which can be taken in the coming winter which will give us something like 74 weeks, this is a total benefit provided which I do not think I should be pressed to extend.

Mr. SHINWELL: The right hon. Gentleman told us earlier in the debate that he intended to grant certain Amendments. I told him in Committee and I repeat it now that no concessions had been granted in the Committee stage and it is obvious that no concessions are likely to be granted on the Report stage.

Sir M. BARLOW: The hon. Member has no right to make that statement, for though he was not present at the Committee at the time I told him that a valuable concession had been made. The Bill as drafted came into force on 19th April. As amended in Committee it now comes into force on 12th April.

Mr. SHINWELL: I see no reason whatever for withdrawing the statement I have made. As a matter of fact, the right hon. Gentleman has granted what he believes to be a concession, but it is not a concession at all. He has simply brought forward the period during which benefit will be granted. That is not a concession, because obviously, when you come to the end of the period, the concession is withdrawn inasmuch as the benefit is brought forward one week and it does not continue as long as it would if the concession were not granted at all. That was pointed out to the right hon. Gentleman in Committee, but he is such an amiable person that one does not care to quarrel with him in the way one would do if his nature were less generous. I submit it is not good enough for the right hon. Gentleman to argue that, because progress has been made in the direction of extending the period, therefore we are not entitled to come forward and ask for this concession. What I should like him to do, and what the House is entitled to ask, is that he should justify the existence of the gap. He has not made the slightest endeavour, in Committee or on the Report stage, to justify the gap, for the obvious reason that he cannot. He has had ample opportunity to do so, and since he has failed, I am entitled to claim that there is very little substance in what he has said. I pointed out in Committee, and I beg the indulgence of the House if I repeat it here, that the only possible justification for the gap was that it would act as a stimulant to the unemployed person so that he should seek employment. That is all very well in normal times, when there is a fair
amount of work on hand, but in an abnormal period like the present such a stimulant is of no advantage at all.
In the, shipbuilding and engineering industries there is so little work, and the possibility of obtaining work is so low that men never go down to the shipbuilding yards at all because they would be wasting their time. Hon. Members on the other side know that what I say is true. Since this gap period is only intended as a stimulant, I claim there is no justification for it at all. On moral grounds you are not entitled to impose a gap period at all. The right hon. Gentleman speaks of extending the period of converting what is a benefit based on insurance into a relief scheme. I have heard the right hon. Gentleman argue, and he has been supported by hon. Members on his own side, to the effect that the uncovenanted benefit was in the nature of relief. We have taken the contrary view, and to some extent we have impressed our view on the right hon. Gentleman. We claim that no part of the benefit paid is relief at all. It is merely a payment on account. It is the payment of sums of money which have to be refunded by those in insurable occupations. Apparently the right hon. Gentleman docs not seem to appreciate the full force of that. I say further that the right hon. Gentleman is not entitled to come to this House and claim that he has granted concessions on the Committee stage. Not a single concession of any value whatever has been granted, and I make bold to say that the right hon. Gentleman is not empowered to come forward and grant any concessions.
The policy of the Government is against granting concessions of any kind so far as unemployment relief is concerned. I know sufficient of Government policy to enable me to say that if the right hon. Gentleman granted a concession of any value he would be brought to heel very quickly by his colleagues in the Government. I personally do not expect him to grant any concession. I heard appeals made to him in Committee, but I make no appeal to him. I am satisfied if I made an appeal it would fall on deaf ears, not because the right hon. Gentleman himself is not inclined to accede to these appeals, but because the policy of the Government is such as to make these
appeals of no value at all. You deny to the unemployed person to-day a form of benefit to which that person is entitled, and at the same time you are throwing heavy burdens on to the shoulders of the local authorities. You are piling up burdens upon posterity, you are making it more difficult for local authorities in the future to stand up to the burdens which they will have to undertake in due course. If you are not prepared to grant the concession now asked for, you may depend upon it that the unemployed person will not remain content with what is being given to him to-day, but further than that, he will say, as he is entitled to say, and as hon. Members on these benches will say, that the amendment of the unemployment relief scheme embodied in the proposals now before the House, is of no value to the unemployed person, and should not be regarded as any solution, partial or otherwise, of the problem.

12 M.

Mr. FRANK GRAY: I think that a certain amount of confusion of thought has arisen as to what is, and what is not, insurance. The present proposal is not insurance at all. Under the Act of 1911 an insurance scheme, in fact, existed, on to which has been grafted, by the Act of 1920, a matter which is not properly a subject of insurance at all. We may talk about concessions, but if this was under the Act of 1911, and under an insurance scheme which had been calculated to stand so many weeks of benefit, there would be good grounds for sending such a man to the Guardians—first, because on an insurance basis, the fund would not stand further weeks of benefit, and second, because in normal times if a man was out of employment for a very long period, there would be some evidence that he was not seeking or did not desire employment. But under the present arrangement, which is designed to meet an abnormal situation, it is quite clear that the matter does not depend on any principle of insurance at all, because whether it is 44 weeks, or 50 weeks, on the present basis from an insurance standpoint, the fund is clearly insolvent. It is as unlike insurance as if a house had been burned down, and not only was the premium paid after the event, but was paid by somebody other than the owner. To re-establish your
insurance fund, you are relying upon employed men in normal times to make up the deficit created by a totally different set of people who have suffered through abnormal times. If these men have got to be provided for, as in fact they have, if it is not to be on any basis of insurance at all, and if, as we know is the fact, the work does not exist for these men to do, there can be no evidence that they are shirking employment, and there is no object in sending them from one department to another and finally to the boards of guardians. That means that precisely the same sum of money has to be paid, but in a different way, and in the way which, in fact, increases the cost. Furthermore, it works out on occasion very unfairly. As a matter of fact, in my own constituency the whole of the city of Oxford is not within one union, but part of the city is within a rural union. Where a man who is turned off for a few weeks from receiving benefit has to go to one or other of these unions, the treatment he will receive depends on whether he lives on one side of the road or the other, because the treatment meted out to these men is not the same in the two unions.

Mr. JOWITT: I wish to add my appeal to those already made to the Minister of Labour, to reconsider this matter, even at the last moment. I should like the Minister to bear in mind the conditions prevailing in some of the large shipbuilding constituencies. In my own constituency it is perfectly idle for unemployed men in the shipbuilding, or iron and steel industries, to go round and try to get work. A man may go round the shipbuilding yards, and the other works, but he will only find the gates closed, and a cardboard notice attached to them bearing the words "No work here." Therefore, there is absolutely no point in the man going round seeking work. The test of the "gap," and the only real point about the "gap," is to make certain that a man is genuinely trying to get work, and that goes by the board when you have conditions like these prevailing. The matter stands in this way. These men have got to live. You are not going to take these men into institutions, and the point simply resolves itself into this, who is to pay for these six weeks—the difference between the 44 weeks
and the 50 weeks? Are the guardians to pay, or are they not? At present you are making them pay, and consider what happens. You impose a charge on the rates which is borne by the manufacturers in the district, who are already very hard pressed. The iron and steel manufacturers and the shipbuilders are trying their utmost to get work. The manufacturers in making their tenders have to take the local rates into consideration, and the higher you get your rates the more difficult it is for them to get orders. Consequently, you have a vicious circle, and I ask the Minister of Labour—or if I may appeal from him to those who sit behind him, I ask them—to consider whether it is not fair in cases like this that we should take the burden off the rates, put it on the unemployment fund, and thus relieve necessitous areas.

Mr. J. JONES: I understand and appreciate the fact that the Minister of Labour has got a very difficult task to perform. He has got to try and prove that, so far as the Government are concerned, their heart is full of sympathy and their eyes are full of tears for the unemployed, but I want to suggest that some of us know what unemployment means in so far as the Government are concerned. If the right hon. Gentleman will consult his friend and colleague the Minister of Health, he will probably discover another aspect of the problem. Would it not be better for the Government to accept the national responsibility of abolishing the gap which is proposed, instead of having to face the inevitable bankruptcy of the most important industrial centres in Great Britain? Our own district has always been a Cinderella, but now it is becoming quite respectable. It has had to borrow £1,500,000 owing to this slump in trade, with the result that a large proportion of the ratepayers are now compelled to appeal to the overseers to excuse them from payment of their rates. They cannot carry on. It is now beginning to affect employment in the factories on the riverside. The employers are beginning to see that, if our local expenditure grows much more, it will be impossible for them to carry on. I, therefore, ask that this Amendment should be accepted as a kind of compromise between the responsibility of the State as a whole and the responsibility of the localities. It must be remembered that, in addition to our ordinary un-
employment problem, we have had, in consequence of the War, a concentration of unemployment. Thousands upon thousands of people have been brought in to different localities because of war conditions. Where munition factories were established, where great chemical works existed, men and women were brought from all parts of Great Britain, and they suddenly found themselves practically "on their uppers," with the result that we have got to-day, in nearly every industrial centre in Great Britain, thousands of people who were never previously in those districts.
We are paying out in West Ham to-day £26,000 a week more than we were paying out in a normal year such as 1913. All that money, practically speaking, is paid out in relief of unemployment. We hear a great deal about what the Government are doing, but very little about what the local authorities are doing. It is not insurance against unemployment that you are giving, but insurance against revolution. The only thing is how we can give "a little bit of sugar for the bird," how easily we can let them down. There are men to-day, not belonging to our party, not members of the Labour movement, sitting upon local authorities, who are getting "fed up" with the whole situation, and they are moving resolutions that they will refuse to administer. Men who do not belong to any section of the working-class movement are getting thoroughly upset with the situation. Do you expect that a man with a family, in the East end of London, can live on 15s. a week for himself, 5s. for his wife, and Is. for each child? I only wish some of the

people who talk about it would try to do it. What happens? He comes to the guardians, and we give him the "Mond" scale of relief, and that is not too generous, recognising, of course, the capacity of the individual who is responsible for the scale, and we have to subsidise that. Even if you give us all that we ask for, we shall still have to subsidise them, because they cannot live upon it with prices as they are now.

You are now asking us to accept a bigger responsibility, because for these six weeks we shall have to find that total maintenance, and we shall have to be the gap finders, and we have already borrowed £1,500,000. I am speaking for my district, but some other districts are in an even worse case than ours, and therefore I think the Government should be prepared to accept the responsibility nationally. Eighty of the biggest industrial centres in Great Britain are to-day practically bankrupt, and if the Government are not prepared to accept the financial situation now before us, what hope is there for the next six or 12 months that we are going to be in any better position than we are in now? I suppose we are going to "keep on keeping on," until we find ourselves dead up against the bad end, and the Government will have to reverse their policy, just as they have done on housing. They will have to reconsider the situation, and for the sake of stopping the rot in by-elections they will have to accept the Amendment we are now proposing.

Question put, "That the words 'forty-four' stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 198; Noes, 106.

Division No. 52.]
AYES.
[12.13 a.m.


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Blundell, F. N.
Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.


Ainsworth, Captain Charles
Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips


Alexander, Col. M. (Southwark)
Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Cope, Major William


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Brassey, Sir Leonard
Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South)


Apsley, Lord
Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Crook, C. W. (East Ham, North)


Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin
Briggs, Harold
Crooke, J. S. (Deritend)


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Wilfrid W.
Brittain, Sir Harry
Curzon, Captain Viscount


Baird, Rt. Hon. Sir John Lawrence
Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Newbury)
Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Brown, J. W. (Middlesbrough, E.)
Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Bruford, R.
Dawson, Sir Philip


Banks, Mitchell
Bruton, Sir James
Doyle, N. Grattan


Barlow, Rt. Hon. Sir Montague
Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Edge, Captain Sir William


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Butt, Sir Alfred
Edmondson, Major A. J.


Barnston, Major Harry
Cadogan, Major Edward
Ednam, Viscount


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar (Banff)
Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.
Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)


Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Cautley, Henry Strother
Ellis, R. G.


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
England, Lieut.-Colonel A.


Bennett, Sir T. J. (Sevenoaks)
Chapman, Sir S.
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)


Berry, Sir George
Clarry, Reginald George
Erskine-Bolst, Captain C.


Betterton, Henry B.
Clayton, G. C.
Evans, Ernest (Cardigan)


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Coates, Lt.-Col. Norman
Evans, Capt. H. Arthur (Leicester, E.)


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Falcon, Captain Michael


Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray
Hutchison, w. (Kelvingrove)
Reynolds, W. G. W.


Fawkes, Major F. H.
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)


Fildes, Henry
Jarrett, G. W. S.
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)


Flanagan, W. H,
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Robertson, J. D. (Islington, W.)


Forestier-Walker, L.
Kinioch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Roundell, Colonel R. F.


Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot
Lamb, J. Q.
Ruggles-Brise, Major .E.


Frece, Sir Walter de
Lane-Fox, Lieut-Colonel G. R.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Fremantle, Lieut-Colonel Francis E.
Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C.)
Russell, William (Bolton)


Furness, G. J.
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Russell-Wells, Sir Sydney


Galbraith, J. F. W.
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Gaunt, Rear-Admiral Sir Guy R.
Lloyd-Greame, Rt. Hon. Sir P.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putneyj


George, Major G. L. (Pembroke)
Lorden, John William
Sanders, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert A.


Goff, Sir R. Park
Lorimer, H. D.
Shakespeare, G. H.


Gould, James C.
Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)
Shipwright, Captain D.


Gray. Harold (Cambridge)
Lumley, L. R.
Singleton, J. E.


Greawes-Lord, Walter
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Skelton, A. N.


Gretton, Colonel John
McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)
Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)


Gulnness, Lieut.Col. Hon. W. E.
Manville, Edward
Smith, Sir Harold (Wavertree)


Guthrle, Thomas Maule
Margesson, H. D. R.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Mason, Lieut.-Col. C. K.
Stanley, Lord


Hall, Lieut.Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw
Stott, Lt.-Col. W. H.


Hall, Rr-Adml Sir W. (Llv'p'I.W.D'by)
Mitchell, W. F. (Saffron Walden)
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-


Halstead, Major D.
Molloy, Major L. G. S.
Sturrock, J. Leng


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid H.


Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Harrison, F. C.
Nall, Major Joseph
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Harvey, Major S. E.
Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.)


Hawke, John Anthony
Newson, Sir Percy Wilson
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Hay, Major T. W. (Norfolk, South)
Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J.(Westminster)
Vaughan-Morgan, Col K. P.


Henderson, Sir T. (Roxburgh)
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Waring, Major Walter


Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Paget, T. G.
Watts, Dr. T. (Man., Withington)


Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Parker, Owen (Kettering)
Wells, S. R.


Hewett, Sir J. P.
Pease, William Edwin
Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.


Hlley. Sir Ernest
Penny, Frederick George
White, Lt.-Col. G. D. (Southport)


Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Whitla, Sir William


Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Winterton, Earl


Holher, Gerald Fitzroy
Perring, William George
Wise, Frederick


Hood. Sir Joseph
Phillpson, H. H.
Wolmer, Viscount


Hopkins, John W. W.
Plelou, D.P.
Wood, Rt. Hn. Edward F. L. (Rlpon)


Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Pilditch, Sir Philip
Yerburgh, R. D. T.


Houfton, John Plowright
Privett, F. J.
Young, Rt. Hon. E. H. (Norwich)


Howard, Capt. D. (Cumberland, N.)
Rankin, Captain James Stuart



Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Col. C. K.
Rawson, Lieut.-Com. A. C.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hudson, Capt. A
Remer, J. R.
Colonel Leslie Wilson and Colonel


Hughes, Collingwood
Rentoul, G. S.
Gibbs.


Hume, G. H.




NOES.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hardle, George D.
Richards, R.


Ammon, Charles George
Harris, Percy A.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Sprlng)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hayday, Arthur
Rlley, Ben


Barnes, A.
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Ritson, J.


Batey, Joseph
Herriotts, J.
Roberts, C. H. (Derby)


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Hinds, John
Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Berkeley, Captain Reglnald
Hirst, G. H.
Robinson, W. C. (York, Elland)


Bonwlck, A.
Hodge, Lieut.-Col. J. P. (Preston)
Salter, Dr. A


Bowdler, W. A.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Scrymgeour, E.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Shinwell, Emanuel


Briant, Frank
Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Smith, T. (Pontefract)


Buchanan, G.
Jones, R. T. (Carnarvon)
Spencer, H. H. (Bradford, S.)


Buckle, J.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Stephen, Campbell


Burgess, S.
Jowett, F. W. (Bradford, East)
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)


Cairns, John
Jowitt, W. A. (The Hartlepools)
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plalstow)


Chapple, W. A.
Kirkwood, D.
Turner, Ben


Charleton, H. C.
Lansbury, George
Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)


Darbishire, C. W.
Lawson, John James
Warne, G. H.


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Leach, W.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lee, F.
Webb, Sidney


Duncan, C.
Linfield, F. C.
Weir, L. M.


Ede, James Chuter
Lunn, William
Westwood, J.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
M'Entee, V. L.
Wheatley, J.


Entwistle, Major C. F.
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
White, H. G. (Birkenhead, E.)


Foot, Isaac
Maxton, James
Whiteley, W.


Ganzonl, Sir John
Millar, J. D.
Wignall, James


Gosling, Harry
Muir, John W.
Williams, David (Swansea, E.)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Murnin, H.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Gray, Frank (Oxford)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Greenall, T.
Nichol, Robert
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
O'Grady, Captain James
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Oliver, George Harold



Groves, T.
Paling, W.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Grundy, T. W.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Mr. Vivian Phillipps and Sir Arthur


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Potts, John S.
Marshall.


Harbord, Arthur
Price, E. G.

Sir M. BARLOW: I beg to move, at the end of the Clause, to insert a new Subsection—
(4) Where a disabled person, as defined by Sub-section (1) of Section nine of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1921, is in the opinion of the Minister, by reason of his disability unable to take whole-time employment, the Minister may, notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (b) of Sub-section (3) of Section four of the Act of 1922, authorise that person to receive benefit.
This is an attempt to carry out quite sincerely an undertaking I gave to the Committee. It was pointed out in the Committee, that while the Committee were good enough—and the House now endorses that view—to decide that the discretion may be left in the hands of the Minister of Labour with regard to un-convenanted benefit there was one rather serious case in which the exercise of that discretion was limited by the Act of Parliament. That was in regard to disablement. In practice when the disabled man is incapable of whole-time employment, he is not pressed to undertake it, nor is it a ground of disability against him. But there was the provision of the Act. There was substance in the objection, and, therefore, I have put down on the Paper this Amendment the effect of which will be that the Minister, in the exercise of his discretion, will not be hampered in any way in looking upon these men as subjects for whole-time employment if they are incapable of it.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. WEBB: I beg to move, after the words last inserted, to insert a new Subsection—
(5) The Minister shall appoint a committee of representatives of employers and representatives of employed persons in equal numbers to advise him as to the general conditions under which such authorisation for the receipt of benefit may be given.
I will not say the right hon. Gentleman agreed to this Amendment in Committee, but he was good enough to say he would consider by the Report stage whether or not he could agree to allow himself to be assisted by a purely advisory Committee nominated in regard to this physical question of qualification for uncovenanted benefit. I will not put any strain on the manner in which the Minister is exercising his discretion. It is a very large subject. There are a great many cases of which the Minister does not necessarily hear, and it is suggested that if he
allowed a Committee to make suggestions to him in regard to difficult cases, it might be a good thing.

Mr. HAYDAY: In formally seconding the Amendment, may I say that it is put forward in consequence of the discussion that took place upstairs in the Standing Committee?
It was thought that there were cases upon which such a committee could assist the Ministry. By seeing that perhaps a greater degree of justice, with a big dash of real human sympathy were thrown in, they might be able to help him in getting over some of the difficult snags that seem to occur, no matter how much pains have been taken in drawing up the rules or directions in the main. I hope the Minister of Labour will be able to accept the Amendment.

Sir M. BARLOW: I will say at once that the appeal made for something along the lines of an advisory council has, in my mind, a good deal of sympathy. Not only is that so, but, in fact, I have been considering it for some little while, quite apart from the discussion that has been raised. I do not know what such a council might not grow into in the future, it might have a much more elaborate development and extension. What seems to me to be fundamental at the presentstage, however, when things are in a fluid state, and until times become more normal, is that any Council, to be of use, must function somewhat on these lines. It must, first of all, be of an advisory character, and it must be invited to meet purely on the Minister's invitation. Secondly, it should only deal with broad questions of policy on the Minister's invitation. Thirdly, such a Council would fail of its object unless it were likely to be accepted by those large bodies of persons concerned, the employers, the workers and the State, who are interested in its programme of unemployment insurance. On those three conditions I can conceive of a Council being of some very considerable use, and I am willing to probe that matter in every way, especially with regard to the last point, as to whether it would be likely to be acceptable in practice. As suggested on the Paper, however, I do not think the council, or committee, or whatever it is called, is really of the kind that would be of use. In the first place, it is suggested that it should deal with matters
which really are very largely matters of detail. I do not think it would be advisable to ask an advisory committee or council to deal with matters of detailed administration. These must remain for the Minister. I think it would only lead to confusion if such a committee were asked to deal with details. Therefore, I am afraid I am not in a position to accept the Amendment, at the same time saying that my general view coincides with what underlies it.

Mr. HARRIS: The Minister's reply is rather unsympathetic. After all, it is a very harmless Amendment. On the other hand, it does establish the principle that on a Bill of this kind it is not sound to give so much autocratic power to the Minister. If it were merely a matter of national money subscribed by the taxpayer, he would have a strong case, but he overlooks the fact that a great part of the money is found by the employers and the insured persons. It is not a fund for him to do what he likes with as a member of the Government. It is a great insurance scheme, and the way in which the money is spent and the costs of distribution are very vital matters for the people who are insured. If it is not an insurance scheme, do not call it one. If it is an insurance scheme, let us make the people who subscribe the money—employers and insured persons—feel that it is really a fund found for themselves and under their control through their representatives. That is an important principle to establish. I do not say that the words of the Amendment are particularly attractive. I should like it to be established, if there is to be a committee, that the members should be the representatives of insured persons and employers who pay their share to the insurance fund. It is Very unfortunate that we have this patch-work legislation—one Bill on top of another. Apparently, modern Government do not seem able to look a week, or at any rate a year ahead, and I maintain that if we are to have insurance as a permanent part of our legislation, and if insurance is to have the confidence of the great mass of the 12,000,000 persons who regard themselves as insured, some committee of this sort must be set up. We must not concentrate autocratic powers as at present in the hands of the Minister.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I am surprised that the Minister has turned down this proposal, especially in view of the fact that if he had inquired of the Minister of Health he would have found that there was such a Consultative Council as is here suggested.

Sir M. BARLOW: I have inquired.

Mr. DAVIES: I know a little of the work of that Council, and I feel sure the Minister would have given a more favourable reply had he made inquiries. The Minister has told us that he is not unwilling to consider a proposal of this kind. Would he tell the House when he is likely to give favourable consideration to some such scheme?

Sir M. BARLOW: I have considered this matter for some time and I have received information from the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Pensions, and the Post Office in connection with all of which Departments there is an official Council on these lines. I have carefully considered this and my mind is moving very much along the lines of the suggestion underlying this.

Mr. W. THORNE: Very slowly.

Mr. S. WALSH: Will the right hon. Gentleman promise that something of this kind will be embodied in the Bill in another place, or tell us when his mind will move? Ho has repeatedly stated that he has sympathy with point after point that has been submitted from this side, and surely if ever there was an in-occuous Amendment it is this one. All that it deals with is simply an advisory committee. The committee possesses no compulsory powers, but it is to be representative of employers and workmen. The Minister himself will be supreme. Surely it is desirable in a complicated scheme such as this that the two bodies, the employers and the workers who pay the money, should at least have powers by which they can tender advice. Why should the Ministry of Labour desire to negative such a proposal as this? Is there something entirely distinct between the Ministry of Labour and other Departments? Will the right hon. Gentleman give us any idea as to when an advisory council is likely to be set up I He says he will not have the proposal inserted in another place. Will he say that his mind will move in a reasonable time
in the direction of setting up such a committee? It is not right for the Minister to treat the matter in such an off-hand way as if the whole thing depended on him. After all, the working people are finding millions of money, and surely the employers and employed have a right to some little say in the matter of

an advisory committee. He says that he will not agree to anything being done in another place. That is denying the professions of sympathy which he has been giving to the House all the evening.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 99; Noes, 168.

Division No. 53.]
AYES.
[12.38 a.m.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hayes, John Henry (Edge Hill)
Richards, R.


Batey, Joseph
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Henderson, Sir T. (Roxburgh)
Rlley, Ben


Bonwick, A.
Herriotts, J.
Ritson, J.


Bowdler, W. A.
Hirst, G. H.
Roberts, C. H. (Derby)


Briant, Frank
Hodge, Lieut.-Col. J. P. (Preston)
Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Robinson, W. C. (York, Elland)


Buchanan, G.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Salter, Dr. A.


Burgess, S.
Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)
Scrymgeour, E.


Cairns, John
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Shinwell, Emanuel


Charleton, H. C.
Jones, R. T. (Carnarvon)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Darbishire, C. W.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Spencer, H. H. (Bradford, S.)


Davles, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Jowitt, W. A. (The Hartlepools)
Stephen, Campbell


Duncan, C.
Kirkwood, D.
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)


Ede, James Chuter
Lansbury, George
Thorne, W. (West Ham, plaistow)


Edge, Captain Sir William
Lawson, John James
Turner, Ben


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Leach, W.
Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)


England, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Linfield, F. C.
Warne, G. H.


Entwistle, Major C. F.
Lunn, William
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Evans, Capt. H. Arthur (Leicester, E.)
M'Entee, V. L.
Webb, Sidney


Evans, Ernest (Cardigan)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Weir, L. M.


Fildes, Henry
Marshall, Sir Arthur H.
Westwood, J.


Foot, Isaac
Maxton, James
Wheatley, J.


Gosling, Harry
Millar, J. D.
White, H. G. (Birkenhead, E.)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Muir, John W.
Whiteley, W.


Gray, Frank (Oxford)
Murnin, H.
Whitla, Sir William


Grentell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Nichol, Robert
Williams, David (Swansea, E.)


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
O'Grady, Captain James
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Grundy, T. W.
Oliver, George Harold
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Guthrie, Thomas Maule
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Young, Rt. Hon. E. H. (Norwich)


Harbord, Arthur
Philipson, H. H.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Hardie, George D.
Phillipps, Vivian



Harris, Percy A.
Potts, John S.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hayday, Arthur
Price, E. G.
Mr. Ammon and Mr. Frederick Hall.


NOES.


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.
Galbraith, J. F. W.


Ainsworth, Captain Charles
Cautley, Henry Strother
Ganzoni, Sir John


Alexander, Col. M. (Southwark)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Gaunt, Rear-Admiral Sir Guy R.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Chapman, Sir S.
Goff, Sir R. Park


Apsley, Lord
Clarry, Reginald George
Gray, Harold (Cambridge)


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Wilfrid W.
Clayton, G. C.
Greaves-Lord, Walter


Baird, Rt. Hon. Sir John Lawrence
Coates, Lt.-Col. Norman
Guinness, Lieut.-Col Hon. W. E.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Cockerill, Brigadler-General G. K.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)


Banks, Mitchell
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Hall, Rr-Adml Sir W.(Llv'p'l,W.D'by)


Barlow, Rt. Hon. Sir Montague
Cope, Major William
Halstead, Major D.


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Barnston, Major Harry
Crooke, J. S. (Derltend)
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)


Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Harrison, F. C.


Bennett, Sir T. J. (Sevenoaks)
Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead)
Harvey, Major S. E.


Berry, Sir George
Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Hawke, John Anthony


Betterton, Henry B.
Dawson, Sir Philip
Hay, Major T. W. (Norfolk, South)


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Doyle, N. G rattan
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)


Blundell, F. N.
Ednam, Viscount
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D.(St. Maryiebone)


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Ellis, R. G.
Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Hood, Sir Joseph


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Erskine-Bolst, Captain C.
Hopkins, John W. W.


Briggs, Harold
Falcon, Captain Michael
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)


Brown, J. W. (Middlesbrough, E.)
Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray
Houfton, John Plowright


Bruford, R.
Fawkes, Major F. H.
Howard, Capt. D. (Cumberland, N.)


Bruton, Sir James
Flanagan, W. H.
Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Col. C. K.


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot
Hughes, Collingwood


Butt, Sir Alfred
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Hume, G. H.


Cadogan, Major Edward
Furness, G. J.
Hutchison, W. (Kelvingrove)


Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J.(Westminster)
Shipwright, Captain D.


Jarrett, G. W. S.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Singleton, J. E.


King, Captain Henry Douglas
Paget, T. G.
Skelton, A. N.


Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Parker, Owen (Kettering)
Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)


Lamb, J. Q.
Pease, William Edwin
Stott, Lt.-Col. W. H.


Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Colonel G. R.
Penny, Frederick George
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton.


Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C.)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid H.


Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Pielou, D. P.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Lloyd-Greame, Rt. Hon. Sir P.
Privett, F. J.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.)


Lorlmer, H. D.
Rankin, Captain James Stuart
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)
Remer, J. R.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Lumley, L. R.
Rentoul, G. S.
Waring, Major Walter


Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Reynolds, W. G. W.
Watts, Dr. T. (Man., Withington)


McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)
Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)
Wells, S. R.


Manville, Edward
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)
Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.


Margesson, H. D. R.
Robertson, J. D. (Islington, W.)
White, Lt.-Col. G. D. (Southport)'


Mason, Lieut.-Col. C. K
Roundell, Colonel R. F.
Whitla, Sir William


Milne, J. S. Ward law
Ruggles-Brise, Major E.
Winterton, Earl


Mitchell, W. F. (Saffron Walden)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Wise, Frederick


Molloy, Major L. G. S.
Russell, William (Bolton)
Wood, Rt. Hn. Edward F. L. (Ripon)


Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. .J. T, C.
Russell-Wells, Sir Sydney
Yerburgh, R. D. T.


Moreing, Captain Algernon H.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)



Nail, Major Joseph
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)
Sanders, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert A.
Colonel Leslie Wilson and Colonel


Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Shepperson, E. W.



Newson, Sir Percy Wilson

CLAUSE 4.—(Rates of benefit and rates of contribution.)

(2) Notwithstanding any enactment to the contrary, the rates of contribution in force at the commencement of this Act shall remain in force after the end of the deficiency period until such date as the Minister may by order prescribe, but not being a date later than, the first day of the insurance year commencing next after the end of the deficiency period, and after the date so prescribed the contributions payable by employed persons and their employers shall be at such reduced rates to be prescribed by the Minister with the consent of the Treasury, but not in any case exceeding the rates set out in the First Schedule of this Act, as appear to him from time to time to be necessary for the purpose of providing for the payment of benefit at the rates in force at the date aforesaid, and the contribution to be made out of moneys provided by Parliament shall be at a rate equal to one-fourth of the aggregate amount of the contributions paid in respect of the employed person by himself and his employer, or in the case of an exempt person paid by his employer, and Sub-sections (3) and (7) of Section five of the principal Act shall have effect accordingly.

Mr. DUNCAN: I beg to move, in Subsection (2) after the word "prescribed" [" reduced rates to be prescribed"], to insert the words "by Regulations made."
The Amendment I have to move is a very modest one, and I trust that the Minister will be able to give this concession to justify the evidence we put in. I move this Amendment shortly in order to give the Minister the opportunity of indicating what he is prepared to do.

Mr. HAYDAY: I beg to second the Amendment. The insertion of these three words is really intended to provide that the Minister, instead of being left to prescribe by himself with the consent of the Treasury, should prescribe by Regulation. We are hoping to have the opportunity of these Regulations being laid on the Table from time to time, so that they will come before Members of the House. Otherwise, if this provision be not made, the Minister, in consultation with the Treasury, may prescribe. This is a matter which the Minister might well accept in order that we may save time. All that it really means is that he shall prescribe by Regulation, and we should then have the opportunity of knowing what it was that he was able to prescribe through Regulation made by him.

Sir M. BARLOW: I think there is some misunderstanding about this matter. The word "prescribe" is a technical word. Under Section 35, I think it is, of the original Act, it is provided that the Minister may make regulations for prescribing anything which under that Act is to be prescribed. If he prescribes, he prescribes by regulations. That is already provided for. Therefore, I do not think the Amendment is necessary. The present Bill when passed into law will be read with the Act of 1920, therefore the provision as to prescribing in the Act of 1920 would apply to this Bill. I do not think that the Amendment in its present shape is necessary.

Mr. HAYDAY: Is it not in the principal Act that the word "Regulation" does appear and that the intention is that whatever the Minister prescribes he does so under the principal Act by regulation? A doubt is created here, because the term "Regulation" does not appear in connection with the sentence. It simply remains to be prescribed by the Minister with the consent of the Treasury, but it does not say how it shall be prescribed. That is the doubt we wish to clear up. We say if he has to prescribe it should be by regulation and that opportunity may be given of its coming before the Members of the House.

Sir M BARLOW: If there is any doubt about the matter I have no objection to accepting the Amendment, though I think it is unnecessary, because I cannot prescribe in any other way. If the House would desire me to accept the words I will.

Mr. SHINWELL: That is the first con-concession.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Mr. Duncan

Mr. HAYDAY: On a point of Order. I would point out that my Amendment to Sub-section (2), to leave out the words
and the contribution to be made out of moneys provided by Parliament shall be at a rate equal to one-fourth of the aggregate amount of the contributions paid in respect of the employed person by himself and his employer, or in the case of an exempt person paid by his employer, and Sub-sections (3) and (7) of Section five of the principal Act shall have effect accordingly," 
has been ruled out of order. I do not know why it was ruled out. Perhaps I ought not to debate that point but this Amendment really deals with the permanent side of unemployment. The reason for the present Bill we are informed is that it is in consequence of the extension of the fourth period, but in the Bill that deals with the extension of the fourth special period something else is being introduced to deal not only with the fourth special period but after the deficiency period also which may be three or four years hence. I hope it is in order to say that it will be time to deal with this rearrangement as to contributions when the occasion for determining that arises. We say that the occasion has not arisen under the present Measure which is introduced to deal solely with the extension of the special period.

Mr. SPEAKER: The point was dealt with in the Financial Resolution and cannot be discussed again.

Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: I observe, Mr. Speaker, you said that the next Amendment standing in the name of two hon. Members of the Labour party has not been selected. May I draw your attention to the fact that the situation is now altered by the fact that the Government have accepted the last Amendment moved by the two hon. Gentlemen; and the second Amendment in their names appears to me in consequence to be extremely relevant to the one accepted. In these circumstances I suggest that a statement should be heard in accordance with Standing Order 27a.

Mr. SPEAKER: It is quite true that the Amendment is consequential to the Amendment just accepted, consequently I must allow discussion upon it.

Mr. DUNCAN: I beg to move, at the end of the Clause, to insert a new Subsection:
(4) Regulations made by the Minister under the provisions of this Section shall be laid before each House of Parliament as soon as may be after they are made; and if an Address is presented to His Majesty by either House of Parliament within the next subsequent twenty days on which that House has sat next after the Regulations are laid before it, praying that the Regulations may be annulled, they shall thenceforth be void, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder, or to the making of new Regulations. If the Session of Parliament ends before such twenty days as aforesaid have expired, the Regulations shall be laid before each House of Parliament at the commencement of the next Session as if they had not previously been laid.
The Amendment simply lays down that the Regulations made by the Minister under the provisions of this Clause shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament as soon as possible. The idea is to give Members of the Houses of Parliament an opportunity of seeing whether the Regulations are reasonable or unreasonable, and to give them an opportunity if unreasonable to raise the matter in the House with a view of getting some amendment made to them. There is no suggestion of wasting the time of the House. We want to make the legislation as good as we can. The reasonableness of the Amendment is already shown by the acceptance by the Minister of the first Amendment dealing with this. It gives us an indication that
as far as he is concerned he is not opposed to what we suggest. We think the Members of the House of Commons should have an opportunity of going through these matters when they are laid before the House. We are dealing with the case of millions of workpeople in this country, and it is the business of those of us who are connected with trade unions and who have to deal with unemployed to have some idea as to how we are going to fare in the future. If there be no real objection I hope the Minister will accept the Amendment.

Mr. HAYDAY: I beg to second the Amendment. It will obviate the previous misunderstanding that have taken place in connection with Regulations, Rules or directions. Earlier on, during the discussion upon this Amendment, the Minister informed the House that he was about to codify all the, Regulations, Rules or directions and that he hoped to make them available not only for Members of the House, but also for the public. That being so, I really cannot see the objection to these Regulations being laid on the Table of the House as the other Regulations are, because we have constantly said there would be more disqualifications for benefit as a result of the Regulations. Applicants and people generally are led to believe that all unemployed persons qualified by stamps or otherwise have benefit available to them, provided they fulfil certain conditions laid down in the Act. We have not heard that the Regulations and instructions to members of the local employment committees, Employment Exchange managers and Referees vary from time to time and with each subsequent Rule or Regulation that has been issued there has been a tightening up of: the conditions upon which unemployed persons have a right to benefit. As the Minister accepted the previous Amendment, I hope he will say he has nothing to hide and no purpose to serve and will send these Regulations broadcast amongst the people, instead of privately to members of committees or Employment Exchange managers. If the Regulations are laid on the Table of the House, they will give us an opportunity of letting applicants know what the Minister is about to do.

1.0 A M

Sir M. BARLOW: There is a little confusion, which I think we must clear up. Two points have been covered by the
two speeches made. First, there is the question whether the Minister's directions— call them Rules, directions or instructions, as you will, for they are perfectly general words— issued by the Ministry shall be turned into formal Statutory Regulations or not. I have carefully refused to use the word "Regulation," because that is a technical word used when the Ministry prescribes a thing by Statute. The first question is whether the Rules and instructions directing a committee or manager as to how the Minister's discretion is to be exercised are to be turned into Statutory Regulations. I have indicated that that should not be done, at any rate at the present stage. The second point is whether, where Statutory Regulations are required, as they are under this Clause (to which I have already accepted an Amendment), this Amendment we are discussing is necessary, as the matter is provided for under Section 35 of the Act of 1920.

Mr. HAYDAY: Have you ever laid Regulations yet?

Sir M. BARLOW: I have not laid instructions, because these are not in the
form of Statutory Regulations. We really must get it clear—this word "Regulation"

Mr. HAYDAY: Have you laid Regulations, and are you at the moment pledged to lay these Regulations?

Sir M. BARLOW: So far as we have proceeded by Statutory Regulations made under the Act, they have, of course, been laid— they are bound to be in any case where we use the form of Statutory Regulations. Section 35, Sub-section (3) of the Act of 1920 has to be complied with. The issuing of personal directions by the Ministry is another thing. It is no good confusing the two. My point is that I do not propose, and I say it quite frankly, to turn these instructions of the Minister with regard to uncovenanted benefit, the question of aliens and other things, into Statutory Regulations. If we were proceeding by Statutory Regulations, as we shall proceed under this Clause, then we are already obliged to lay the Regulations under Section 35, Subsection (3) of the Act of 1930, which is as follows:
All Regulations made under this Act shall be laid before each House of Parliament as soon as may be after they are made,
and, if an address is presented to His Majesty by either House of Parliament within the next subsequent twenty days on which the House has sat next after any such Regulation is laid before it, praying that the Regulation may be annulled, it shall henceforth be void, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done there under or to the making of any new Regulation.
That, in a rather more compendious form, is the Amendment on the Paper. I suggest it is an unnecessary Amendment and should not be pressed.

Mr. SPEAKER: That raises the question in my mind as to whether the Amendment is superfluous. This would only mean under this Sections, whereas what is quoted by the Minister seems to apply to the whole of the Amending Act .and the Act.

Sir M. BARLOW: Yes.

Mr. T. THOMSON: The whole tenor of the Clause have been altered and these regulations should be laid under the new Amendment.

Captain W. BENN: Further, on that point of Order, the wording in this Amendment is not the same exactly as the wording of Section 35 (3) of the original Act. There is a sentence at the end of this Amendment imposing further duties on the Minister.

Sir M. BARLOW: It does not really need it.

Mr. SPEAKER: I agree there is an extra sentence at the end.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 85; Noes, 176.

Division No. 54.]
AYES.
[1.7 a.m.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Harriotts, J.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Batey, Joseph
Hirst, G. H.
Riley, Ben


Bonn. Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Hodge, Lieut.-Col. J. P. (Preston)
Ritson, J.


Bonwick, A.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Bawdier, W. A.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Robinson, W. C. (York, Elland)


Briant, Frank
Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)
Salter, Dr. A.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Scrymgeour, E.


Buchanan, G.
Jones, R. T. (Carnarvon)
Shinwell, Emanuel


Burgess, S.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Short, Alfred (Wedneshury)


Cairns, John
Jowitt, W. A. (The Hartlepools)
Spencer, H. H. (Bradford, S.)


Charleton, H. C.
Kirkwood, D.
Stephen, Campbell


Darbishire, C. W.
Lansbury, George
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lawson, John James
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plalstow)


Duncan, C.
Leach, W.
Turner, Ben


Ede, James Chuter
Lunn, William
Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedweilty)
M'Entee, V. L.
Warne, G. H.


Entwistle, Major C. F.
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Foot, Isaac
Marshall, Sir Arthur H.
Weir, L. M.


Gosling, Harry
Maxton, James
Westwood, J.


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Millar, J. D.
Wheatley, J.


Gray, Frank (Oxford)
Muir, John W.
White, H. G. (Birkenhead, E.)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Murnin, H.
Whiteley, W.


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Nichol, Robert
Wignall, James


Grundy, T. W.
O'Grady, Captain James
Williams, David (Swansea, E.)


Harbord, Arthur
Oliver, George Harold
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Hardle, George D.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Harris, Percy A.
Phillipps, Vivian



Hayday, Arthur
Potts, John S.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hayes, John Henry (Edge Hill)
Richards, R.
Mr. Ammon and Mr. Frederick Hall.


Henderson, T. (Glasgow)




NOES.


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Clarry, Reginald George


Alnsworth, Captain Charles
Blades, Sir George Rowland
Clayton, G. C.


Alexander, Col. M. (Southwark)
Blundell, F. N.
Coates, Lt.-Col. Norman


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Cobb, Sir Cyril


Apsley, Lord
Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Wilfrid W.
Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips


Baird, Rt. Hon. Sir John Lawrence
Briggs, Harold
Cope, Major William


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Brown, J. W. (Middlesbrough, E.)
Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Bruford, R.
Crooke, J. S. (Derltend)


Banks, Mitchell
Bruton, Sir James
Curzon, Captain Viscount


Barlow, Rt. Hon. Sir Montague
Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead)


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Butt, Sir Alfred
Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.


Barnston, Major Harry
Button, H. S.
Dawson, Sir Philip


Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Cadogan, Major Edward
Doyle, N. Grattan


Bennett, Sir T. J. (Sevenoaks)
Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.
Edge, Captain Sir William


Berry, Sir George
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Edmondson, Major A. J.


Betterton, Henry B.
Chapman, Sir S.
Ednam, Viscount


Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Howard, Capt. D. (Cumberland, N.)
Rentoul, G. S.


Ellis, R. G.
Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Col. C. K.
Reynolds, W. G. W.


England, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Hughes, Collingwood
Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)


Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Hume, G. H.
Roberts, C. H. (Derby)


Erskine-Bolst, Captain C.
Hutchison, W. (Kelvingrove)
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)


Evans, Ernest (Cardigan)
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Robertson, J. D. (Islington, W.)


Evans, Capt. H. Arthur (Leicester, E.)
Jarrett, G. W. S.
Rounded, Colonel R. F.


Falcon, Captain Michael
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Ruggles-Brise, Major E,


Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Russelt, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Fawkes;, Major F. H.
Lamb, J. Q.
Russell, William (Bolton)


Fildes, Henry
Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Colonel G. R.
Russell-Wells, Sir Sydney


Flanagan, W. H.
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Lloyd-Greame, Rt. Hon. Sir P.
Sanders, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert A.


Furness, G. J.
Lorlmer, H. D.
Shepperson, E. W.


Galbraith, J. F. W.
Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)
Shipwright, Captain D.


Ganzoni, Sir John
Lumley, L. R.
Singleton, J. E.


Gaunt, Rear-Admiral Sir Guy R.
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Skelton, A. N.


Goff, Sir R. Park
McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)
Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)


Gould, James C.
Manville, Edward
Smith, Sir Harold (Wavertree)


Gray, Harold (Cambridge)
Margesson, H. D. R.
Stott, Lt.-Col. W. H.


Greaves-Lord, Walter
Mason, Lieut.-Col. C. K.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton.


Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid H.


Guthrie, Thomas Maule
Mitchell, W. F. (Saffron Walden)
Sykes, Major-Gen. sir Frederick H.


Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Molloy, Major L. G. S.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, s.)


Hall, Rr-Adml Sir W.(Llv'p'l,W.D'by)
Morelng, Captain Algernon H.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Halstead, Major D.
Nail, Major Joseph
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)
Waring, Major Walter


Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Watts, Dr. T. (Man., Withington)


Harrison, F. C.
Newsan, Sir Percy Wilson
Wells, S. R.


Harvey, Major S. E.
Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J.(Westminster)
Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.


Hawke, John Anthony
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
White, Lt.-Col. G. D. (Southport)


Hay, Major T. W. (Norfolk, South)
Paget, T. G.
Whitla, Sir William


Henderson, Sir T. (Roxburgh)
Parker. Owen (Kettering)
Winterton, Earl


Hennessy, Major J. R- G.
Pease, William Edwin
Wise, Frederick


Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Penny, Frederick George
Wood, Rt. Hn. Edward F. L. (Ripen)


Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D.(St. Marylebone)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Yerburgh, R. D. T.


Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Young, Rt. Hon. E. H. (Norwich)


Hood, Sir Joseph
Pielou, D. P.



Hopkins, John W. W.
Privett, F. J.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Rankin, Captain James Stuart
Colonel Leslie Wilson and Colonel Gibbs.


Houfton, John Plowright
Remer, J. R.



Bill read the Third time, and passed.

CLAUSE 6.—(Arrangements with local education authorities for administration of benefit. 11 and 12 Geo. 5, c. 51.)

(2) Whore a scheme under this Section is in force—

(a) there shall out of the unemployment fund be repaid to the education authority sums equal to the aggregate amount from time to time paid in benefit by the authority; and

(b)there shall from time to time be paid to the education authority in respect of administrative expenses such sums as may be determined in accordance with a scale fixed by the Minister with the consent of the Treasury, and those sums shall be treated as part of the expenses incurred by the Minister in carrying the principal Act into effect:

Provided that the scale for the purposes of this Section shall be fixed after consultation with such associations as may appear to the Minister to represent the interests of local education authorities and shall be such as will, so far as can to estimated, on an average produce sums sufficient to reimburse to the authorities undertaking additional duties under this Section the amount by which their administrative expenses are
increased by reasonable expenditure upon those duties and to compensate them in respect of interest.

Sir M. BARLOW: I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), to leave out the words "the scale" ["Provided that the scale"].
This is an Amendment to meet some of the objections raised in Committee. [HON. MEMBERS: "Agreed!"] I must explain shortly what is the effect of the words, because it is germane to another Amendment which stands on the Paper. The point at issue deals with the expenses of education authorities which undertake the work of the insurance of young persons between 16 and 18 years of age when they at the same time deal with the placing of these young persons in employment. It is suggested that the expenses may be considerable and that they may vary. I therefore put in the words "scale or scales" so that it may be possible to have varying scales in varying areas.

Sir CYRIL COBB: I understand that Clause 6 only deals with the question of expenditure in connection with the administration of unemployment benefit. I think the proposed Amendment is an im
provement on the Clause in the Bill, but it must be remembered that the expenditure on the administration of unemployment benefit is a very small proportion of the expenditure which necessarily falls on local education authorities which adopt the choice of employment scheme as a whole

Mr. SPEAKER: How does this arise on the Amendment, which merely substitutes for one scale differing scales in different cases?

Sir C. COBB: What I was endeavouring to do was to ask the right hon. Gentleman for some assurance with regard to other classes of expenditure necessarily involved by the Chelmsford Report. It is only because the Chelmsford Report is to be legalised in this Bill that the local education authorities will be obliged to make a choice as to whether they will or will not adopt the Choice of Employment Act, or leave in the hands of the Ministry of Labour the whole question of expenditure connected with the choice of employment for children. Immediately a local education authority exercises its power under this Bill, there will ensue incidental expenditure in connection with the choice of employment of young persons, and, in addition, other expenditure included under Clause 6 of this Bill. My point is that, if that happens, the local education authority will be obliged to undertake the whole of the expenditure.

Mr. SPEAKER: It cannot be raised on this Amendment; it can be done on the Third Reading.

Mr. HOHLER: Is it not in order to raise the question of whether the whole expenditure will be covered?

Mr. SPEAKER: No. As I read the Amendment it is to leave out the words "the scale" and insert "different scales," as different scales may be fixed for different classes of local authorities.

Mr. HOHLER: Are we not entitled to know whether these scales will cover the whole of the charges on the local authorities? It means an additional burden on the county rates and we are entitled to know what it is to be.

Mr. SPEAKER: If it would come in the form of asking what the Minister had in mind when he uses the words "different scale."

Sir C. COBB: Does the scale really include a scale which is to be raised between the Minister of Labour and the Board of Education 1 What amount of money has to be paid to a local education authority if it adops the full scheme? Under the full unemployment scheme London was paid £35,000. Will London receive that £35,000 in order to carry on the same work that is now being done by the Ministry of Labour, or will it, on the other hand, have to go to the Board of Education? Under the regulations of the Board of Education, they would get 50 per cent, only of the expense, the other 50 per cent, falling on the rates. In that case you will have this extraordinary result. In some parts where the local education authority adopts the full unemployment scheme, half the money would fall upon the rates and half the money would come from the Treasury through the Board of Education, whereas in another district where the local education authority absolutely refused to take over this business at all and leaves it in the hands of the Ministry of Labour, then the whole expense will fall upon the unemployment scheme, so that you will have two different systems working through the country, according to the choice which the local education authority makes.

Mr. CHARLES ROBERTS: The
Minister takes powers, I understand it, to vary a scale; also, as I understand, to retain a certain discretion as to the amount of the expenses which he will allow. Is that so? Car he give us an assurance that any additional expenses of a legitimate kind to which the education authorities will be put by taking on these full duties it is intended to reimburse them under his scale?

Mr. R. DAVIES: I would like to put a simple question to the Minister of Labour. I understand his Department has been in negotiation with the Education Committees' Association of this country regarding this very point, and that the negotiations have been proceeding for several months. The question I desire to put to him is this: Has his Department satisfied the representatives of the education authorities with regard to this Clause as it now stands?

Mr. HARRIS: An impression was made in my mind that this looks like a little sharp practice on the part of the Minister
of Labour to shift from the National Exchequer on to the local rates what will be a very considerable charge. I have no doubt he has done it in good faith. The education authorities want to do their duty to these young people and to give them a fair chance and keep control over and follow them up in their employment after they leave school. If they do they will be shouldered with the burden of paying for the Employment Exchanges now borne by the Ministry of Labour. That will mean that a certain sum will have to be found by the rates, the whole of which is now found out of the Exchequer by the Treasury. We have to watch that very closely, because it is an unfortunate thing at the present time that, under pressure from the Board of Education, education authorities were cutting down expenditure on education right and left. In every direction economies were being made in a desire to cut the rates down on education matters to the very bone. Education authorities will be influenced by their desire to avoid this expenditure going on the rates, although this magnificent work for the young people should be done by the Education autharities; it is in the interest, too, of the smooth working of the Act that it should be done by them. It would be nothing short of a disaster for this work to be taken out of the hands of the Education authorities. I do say, even at this early hour of the morning, the Minister should make some concession. It is unfortunate that this Clause is introduced into a Bill which has very little to do with Education. We are striking at the interests of the children. No one at the present time, with the rates so high and so many extra burdens put upon the ratepayers, thinks it wise to put on them an extra burden. I am glad to see that the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Montague Barlow) is anxious to get up. I hope it is in order to give me a satisfactory reply. I hope that in this scheme of getting education authorities to co-operate in this matter and doing this good work so much better than the Ministry of Labour that they will not be penalised by having the cost and expense of it put upon the education rate.

Mr. HAYDAY: I understand that the Treasury allow one-tenth of the total contribution for administrative purposes under the Unemployment Acts. This sug-
gestion of the Minister is a compromise. What I feel about it is this. This is a fund subscribed to jointly by employer, workmen and the State. If the fund is to be established for a proper allowance for administrative purposes in the wider field of unemployment and it is to carry a burden that it is not justified in being asked to carry by the presentation by any education authority's bill who says: "here is our bill of expenses, meet it," then you are making a charge that will add a greater percentage of the expenses they would get. It is for the education authorities to make up any difference rather than to take from this fund already deficient to the extent of 20 millions to make good for any possible scheme made or created by an education authority.

Sir M. BARLOW: It is my business to protect the fund and prevent it being raided by education authorities I .am sorry that the expression "sharp practice" was used, but the hon. Member said that I acted in good faith. Though it seems a contradiction, I will leave it at that. There really is quite unnecessary confusion about the whole of this matter. There are two systems of dealing with young persons from 14 to 18. One, broadly speaking, under the Board of Education-, in connection with the local education authority, in which case the local education authority pays half the expenses, and the other system is under the Ministry of Labour in connection with the Employment Exchanges. A local area can choose which they like. That is the effect of the Chelmsford Report. If they choose to come under the Ministry of Labour the whole of the expense is borne for them. If they choose to come under the Board of Education they have to bear half the cost. It is for them to choose. It is not possible for them to complain and say an extra burden is being put upon them if they take the option of the Board of Education rather than come under the Ministry of Labour. As a matter of fact, under the two systems there were at the present time about 200 areas working under the Ministry of Labour and about 150 under the Board of Education. Therefore the majority, if there be a majority, have adopted the system under which they stave off the burden of expenses. I am anxious that a perfectly free choice should be given to each area, so. that if it pleases it can
operate under the Ministry of Labour and equally if it pleases it can operate under the Board of Education. That being so, I have gone a very long way to meet the local authorities by the Amendment I have put on the Paper. If those areas choose to operate under the Board of Education, if, in other words, it chooses to do this work of placing these children of 14 to 18, it has, under the Chelmsford Report, also to undertake the work of insurance from 16 to 18. The same question arising is as to the additional expenditure which will be incurred by local education authorities in respect of children from 14 to 16 and insured workers from 16 to 18. Some education authorities say that the fund ought to bear every item of expenditure which they say is due to their doing this insurance work. I do not think it is a fair proposition. Some education authorities have put the cost as high as three or four shillings, but we know from our experience that it is nothing like that. If this Amendment were rejected or if the next Amendment were carried I think the effect would probably be, and I think that is the intention of the Mover, that expenditure to local authorities undertaking this work would be put upon my Department. I was moved by the argument, in Committee that expenditure varies in the various areas, as they probably do in London, and I said I would put words in if it could be proved that there were variations in actual expenditure incurred. I would draw the attention of the House to the words at present in the Bill:
Provided that the scale for the purposes of this Section shall be fixed after consultation with such associations as may appear to the Minister to represent the interests of local education authorities and shall he such as will, so far as can be estimated, on an average produce sums sufficient to reimburse to the authorities undertaking additional duties under this Section the amount by which their administrative expenses are increased by reasonable expenditure upon those duties and to compensate them in respect of interest.
Surely that is a fair way of putting it, and with the extra latitude I have taken under this Amendment by allowing scale or scales to vary or the possibility of variation, I venture to suggest I have gone a long way to meet the difficulties of the local authorities, and this Amendment
should be passed without further discussion.

Mr. RICHARDSON: This is a long drawn out dispute. All that is in it is to which of the Departments is best able to carry on this work. The Minister has said that if it comes under the Ministry of Labour they are willing to pay part of the expenditure, and I submit the people best able to do so is the Board of Education who have the children in their care right up to the moment they go to work. If it is possible for the Minister to pay all expenditure, surely the work ought to be given to the Board of Education, for they are better able to do it. This Amendment is not by any means satisfactory, and in the next Amendment further trouble will arise if the Minister does not give way on these two or three words. I suggest that the Minister, in consultation with the other associations, should confer, and that the matter should be left to the Board of Education.

Mr. SPEAKER: It cannot be done in this Bill. It is without its scope.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made:

In Sub-section (2), after the word "Section" ["for the purposes of this Section"], insert the words "different scales may be fixed for different classes of education authorities and every such scale.— [Sir M. Barlow.]

CLAUSE 9.— (Recovery of sums improperly received by way of benefit.)

(1) Where any person is liable to repay-to the unemployment fund any sum received by him by way of benefit, that sum may. unless that person shows that the sum was received by him in good faith and without knowledge that he was not entitled thereto, be recovered, without prejudice or any other remedy, by means of deductions from any benefit to which that person thereafter becomes entitled.

Mr. DUNCAN: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (1), to insert the words
and if the sum received by him was paid by an association having an arrangement under Section seventeen of the principal Act, such deductions shall be refunded to the association.
The method in operation, at present, is as follows. If a man goes to an Employment Exchange and receives more benefit than he is entitled to, the Employ-
ment Exchange can deduct from any future benefit such sums as are overdrawn. If the man receives his benefit from an organisation under the Act such organisation is not in the position of the Employment Exchange at the present moment. The man may have received a considerable sum from his trade union operating under the Act, but if he leaves the association and on the next occasion makes a direct claim in the Employment Exchange, the association is not able to recover this money. We think the Minister might, at any rate, do what he can to help the association to recover this money which has been wrongly paid. There is nothing extravagant about the proposal. We do not ask him to exercise his generosity, but not to help the dishonest man at the expense of the association.

Mr. HAYDAY: I beg to second the Amendment. I feel that after the very sympathetic way the. Minister received the substance of the discussion upstairs in relation to this point, he will be able to give us a satisfactory answer. It often happens that a man might be paid through his association in consequence of error. Where these mistakes are due to the Labour Exchange, and the payment is made by the association, we do feel that the Minister of Labour should remedy that error.

Sir M. BARLOW: I am glad to give an assurance, which I hope will satisfy the hon. Member who moved this Amendment, which I cannot accept in its present shape. The case dealt with is a case under what we call Section 17. It is a case where a trade union has acted as agent for the Ministry of Labour and has made a State payment and a payment in addition from their own funds. Very good work has been done under this system, and I wish to register my cordial appreciation of that work. With regard to the case with which the hon. Gentlemen are dealing, it is a
case where a mistake has been made and money has been paid improperly beyond the amount due. That mistake may be due to one of two causes. It may be due to the mistake of the association, or the mistake of the Ministry. If the mistake is due to the association, I do not think it is quite reasonable to expect that the charge should be loaded on the Ministry. That is why I cannot accept the Amendment. That the Ministry of Labour should have to refund money they have not paid out through their own fault is not, I think, very reasonable. But if the mistake is due to the Ministry itself, then I am prepared to give an assurance, without making any formal motion, which, I think, my hon. Friends ought to be able to accept. The assurance I am prepared to give is— I will read the words:
If an association makes an overpayment of State benefit owing to a mistake of the Ministry and is unable to recover from the member the sum over-paid, the Ministry will reimburse that sum to the association in full and will charge the member's account with the Unemployment Fund.
Where a mistake arises, we will debit the man's account.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after Half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Monday evening, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at a Quarter before Two o'Clock a.m.